i think jesus was confused...or maybe luke and john were

[waitasec]

john18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

but then we have...

luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.


...49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.


so then why did he ask his servants to get swords and why did his servants fight if his kingdom was not of this world?

 

[fallingblood]

There really is just one instance of a disciple of Jesus striking an individual, and that person is rebuked, and the victim healed.

Off the top of my head then, I am not exactly sure what Luke is talking about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suspect that Luke represents an earlier tradition, one that saw the hoped for kingdom as immanent - a position that became more and more difficult to maintain.

 

[waitasec]

There really is just one instance of a disciple of Jesus striking an individual, and that person is rebuked, and the victim healed.

Off the top of my head then, I am not exactly sure what Luke is talking about.

mark and matthew are in agreement with luke

mark 14:47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

matthew 26:50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”[d]

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

i don't know what john is talking about

 

[waitasec]

I suspect that Luke represents an earlier tradition, one that saw the hoped for kingdom as immanent - a position that became more and more difficult to maintain.

along with mark and matthew...

a reason why john isn't a part of the synoptic gospels.

and i think this contradiction in john sheds some light on your point indeed.

 

[Willamena]

One interpretation is that it's not a literal "sword." Jesus is preparing the disciples for a life without him, after he dies. From Barnes Notes:

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

 

[waitasec]

One interpretation is that it's not a literal "sword." Jesus is preparing the disciples for a life without him, after he dies. From Barnes Notes:

so it was a metaphorical ear that was cut off?

 

[Willamena]

so it was a metaphorical ear that was cut off?

A metaphor about swords can be made while they're carrying swords. Perhaps even more appropriately.

 

[waitasec]

A metaphor about swords can be made while they're carrying swords. Perhaps even more appropriately.

what does the ear being cut off and healed represent?

 

[fallingblood]

what does the ear being cut off and healed represent?

It represents an action, an ignorant one at that, committed by a follower who has yet fully realized the truth of their master. This is why Jesus rebukes his follower and stops any further violence on their side.

 

[Willamena]

what does the ear being cut off and healed represent?

Must it represent something in relation to the swords of Luke 22:36-38?

 

[waitasec]

It represents an action, an ignorant one at that, committed by a follower who has yet fully realized the truth of their master. This is why Jesus rebukes his follower and stops any further violence on their side.

Must it represent something in relation to the swords of Luke 22:36-38?

yes it represents a contradiction in john's gospel.

"If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest"

and what about luke 22:37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’

 

[sincerly]

john18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
but then we have...
luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
...49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
so then why did he ask his servants to get swords and why did his servants fight if his kingdom was not of this world?

Hi Waitasec, All four of the Gospels have recorded those events you questioned. In the context seen in those Gospel recordings, one understands that the mission of Jesus Christ was NOT to set up a kingdom upon this earth. That fact is what is relayed to Pilate in John18:36. Also, the servants Jesus was referring to was seen in Jesus’ rebuke of Peter after cutting off that ear Matt.26:52-53. “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels”?
Jesus had asked twice who that mob had come to take.(John18:4-9), “Jesus answered, I have told you that I am [he]: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.” Peter acted not waiting for a command from Jesus.
That restoring of the ear was in the full scope of the mission of Jesus---Restoration. It certainly had the potential to assure the mob that HE and those with HIM had no violent motives.(Peter was a Believer and follower, but as yet was unconverted). An impetuous Disciple acted on his own “understanding”.
Even to the Ascension of Jesus, the disciples had a wrong idea that Jesus had come to restore/free the Nation of Israel from the Roman Empire.(Acts1:6), “ When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

 

[sincerly]

yes it represents a contradiction in john's gospel.

"If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest"

and what about luke 22:37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’

There is no contradiction (John18:37), "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. "
This is further recorded in (John12:27), "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour."

The fulfilment of that "transgressors" was in the being crucified between two theives. (Isa.53:12,) "Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." ; Luke 23:33, "And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left." The one testified, (vss.40-41) "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss".

 

[waitasec]

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”


his servants did...as presented in the OP.

in mark jesus is portrayed as one who wants to flee...

14:42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

curious behavior if you consider this to be about a heavenly kingdom


edit:
btw,
welcome to the forum sincerly

 

[sincerly]

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

his servants did...as presented in the OP.

The OP is an opinion. The Scriptures, in context,give a differing fact as was shown. Let's look at the message expressed (John18:33-37) and notice that this encounter was with Pilate AFTER being questioned by Annas and Caiaphas. Did Jesus resist being taken? NO! Peter was the only disciple to strike a blow, and that because he didn't wait for and answer to the "Shall we smite with the sword?"(Luke22:49)
In vs.51, Jesus answered, after the fact, "Suffer ye thus far." There was no "preventing" for Jesus had agreed from before the "Passover meal" to be taken. In the "That thou doest, do quickly." (John13:27)

In context, "Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
How much clearer can it be---"Not of this world"---therefore, Servants of that world couldn't include Peter??? Yes, Jesus is gathering persons from this world to fill that kingdom.

in mark jesus is portrayed as one who wants to flee...

14:42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

curious behavior if you consider this to be about a heavenly kingdom

Of the 14 translations I looked at, None indicated that Jesus was "fleeing". The "going" was to meet the betrayer and those with him. Jesus could not have fulfilled HIS Promised Mission of "the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world" had your portraying above been fact.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[Muffled]

along with mark and matthew...

a reason why john isn't a part of the synoptic gospels.

and i think this contradiction in john sheds some light on your point indeed.

John has a different view of the same events but that does not invalidate them.

The fact is that John has the same words as the other gospels but more of the words that were spoken than the others.

The fact from Jesus perspective is that He did not allow His disciples to fight for Him.

This appears to be another object lesson for Peter. Peter is the one who did not want Jesus to go to the cross and Jesus had to tell him "Get behind me Satan." There is only one sword and Peter has it? There is no surprise there. Where was Peter when Jesus said the person who lives by the sword dies by it. The ministry would not have continued very long if all the disciples died by the sword.

The danger was real because James was executed by Herod, Acts 12:3 And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

 

[waitasec]

John has a different view of the same events but that does not invalidate them.

if jesus' kingdom is not of this world, then yes, the inconsistencies found in the other gospels do invalidate his view...

because there is no way we can validate what jesus said...

The fact is that John has the same words as the other gospels but more of the words that were spoken than the others.

he may, but that doesn't mean anything...this gospel was written 60 to 70 yrs after jesus... and of course folklore and legends linger and change.

The fact from Jesus perspective is that He did not allow His disciples to fight for Him.

you can't move goal posts here...jesus was able to predict the rooster crowing 3 times, but couldn't see his servants were going to fight or that he was attempting to flee to prevent his arrest?

This appears to be another object lesson for Peter. Peter is the one who did not want Jesus to go to the cross and Jesus had to tell him "Get behind me Satan." There is only one sword and Peter has it? There is no surprise there. Where was Peter when Jesus said the person who lives by the sword dies by it. The ministry would not have continued very long if all the disciples died by the sword.

actually, according to luke there were 2 swords
again, your moving goal posts. this is what jesus said in john...


“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

i also pointed out where jesus was preventing his arrest too...by his attempt to flee...in the gospel of mark.

and may i also point out that when jesus was praying, he asked his servants to be on the look out and asked them not to sleep.

The danger was real because James was executed by Herod, Acts 12:3 And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

and? what makes it dangerous? the fact that it was a worldly danger a cler and present danger of the flesh....wasn't that the point of jesus dying in the first place?

 

[waitasec]

The OP is an opinion.

i'm afraid you are mistaken. the OP posited a question after displaying some inconsistencies.

The Scriptures, in context,give a differing fact as was shown. Let's look at the message expressed (John18:33-37) and notice that this encounter was with Pilate AFTER being questioned by Annas and Caiaphas. Did Jesus resist being taken? NO! Peter was the only disciple to strike a blow, and that because he didn't wait for and answer to the "Shall we smite with the sword?"(Luke22:49)
In vs.51, Jesus answered, after the fact, "Suffer ye thus far." There was no "preventing" for Jesus had agreed from before the "Passover meal" to be taken. In the "That thou doest, do quickly." (John13:27)

yet according to mark 14 he wanted to flee from his captors

In context, "Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
How much clearer can it be---"Not of this world"---therefore, Servants of that world couldn't include Peter??? Yes, Jesus is gathering persons from this world to fill that kingdom.

we are back to where we started. why did jesus attempt to flee, why the need of the swords and why did jesus servant cut the ear off a soldier?
i didn't pull these inconsistencies out of thin air. that is why i am asking the question in the OP

so then why did he ask his servants to get swords and why did his servants fight if his kingdom was not of this world?

Of the 14 translations I looked at, None indicated that Jesus was "fleeing". The "going" was to meet the betrayer and those with him. Jesus could not have fulfilled HIS Promised Mission of "the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world" had your portraying above been fact.

NIV
mark 14:41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

NKJV
41 Then He came the third time and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough! The hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.”

NAS
41 And He *came the third time, and *said to them, “[q]Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough; (AI)the hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being [r]betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!”

NLT
41 When he returned to them the third time, he said, “Go ahead and sleep. Have your rest. But no—the time has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Up, let’s be going. Look, my betrayer is here!”
Thanks for the welcome.[/QUOTE]


had the passage read 'rise lets meet my betrayer' i think that would have been more consistent with your argument. but it says: lets let us go!, let us be going!, lets be going! depending on the translation.

besides your argument doesn't make sense. why were they on the look out in the first place, why not just turn himself in since the hour has come? what you are saying is that they knew they were to meet the betrayer yet one of the servants stuck a soldier knowing they would meet the betrayer...sorry it doesn't add up.

the swords
the statement, 'let us go, here comes my betrayer'
the cutting off of the ear
all point to a fight to prevent his arrest.

it's no secret jesus pussyfooted his way around the question of whether or not he was the son of god, why would this be any different?


if the hour has come, why didn't he just turn himself in and say beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the son of god and not try to talk his way out of a situation his entire life was supposedly for?

and then we have him crying out to god, 'why have you forsaken me?'

 

[sincerly]

i'm afraid you are mistaken. the OP posited a question after displaying some inconsistencies.

yet according to mark 14 he wanted to flee from his captors

we are back to where we started. why did jesus attempt to flee, why the need of the swords and why did jesus servant cut the ear off a soldier?
i didn't pull these inconsistencies out of thin air. that is why i am asking the question in the OP..................

had the passage read 'rise lets meet my betrayer' i think that would have been more consistent with your argument. but it says: lets let us go!, let us be going!, lets be going! depending on the translation.

besides your argument doesn't make sense. why were they on the look out in the first place, why not just turn himself in since the hour has come? what you are saying is that they knew they were to meet the betrayer yet one of the servants stuck a soldier knowing they would meet the betrayer...sorry it doesn't add up.

the swords
the statement, 'let us go, here comes my betrayer'
the cutting off of the ear
all point to a fight to prevent his arrest.

it's no secret jesus pussyfooted his way around the question of whether or not he was the son of god, why would this be any different?

if the hour has come, why didn't he just turn himself in and say beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the son of god and not try to talk his way out of a situation his entire life was supposedly for?

and then we have him crying out to god, 'why have you forsaken me?'

Hi waitasec, the strawnan you built with phrases and out of context opinions has been explained by the consistantcy of the entire senario presented by the various writers of the Gospels.

Because one "Witness"/Writer emphysizes or speaks concerning a situation doesn't make anothers recording of the same event contradictory or inconsistant. Especially when the overall picture is expressed by all. That is why context is important in answering and obtaining/forming an Question and opinion.

Matthew and John were the two writers who were at the incidents under review. Luke and Mark were not. However, Let's look at Luke 1:1-4, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. "
Waitasec, It is certainly your right to believe or disbelieve the recorded messages and in context explanations.
Again, to give the prophetic reason for what you are questioning.
The disciples were asked to "watch and pray that you enter not into temption."(Matt.26:41) Peter had been warned that before the night was over he would deny Jesus three times. And the "Going" was to meet those who Jesus had been betrayed to---in fulfillment of the Scriptures. But also, They would be persecuted in the future as they presented the Gospel message to the world.
Yes, His "hour had come" for the fulfillment of the Scriptures to be the sacrifice/redemptiom for all of mankind who would believe.
Physical swords will not prevent the arrest/ceasing of the Salvation message. However, by the restoration of the "whole man" by the truth of the sword"/"word of GOD" will prevent one from dying the "second death".
Jesus was the fulfilling of the prophecies which HE showed in Luke 24:27, 44-48.
Jesus kept HIS appointment with "His hour had come".
Peter still hadn't understood Jesus mission as being to redeem fallen mankind.(rather than freeing the nation of Israel from the Roman Empire.)

Hey, don't let the context of the Scriptural truths keep you from believing that which you have conceived.