The first "you need to take these things because the scriptures says I'll be numbered with the transgressors, so you must become transgressors by having money belts, bags, and swords."
Or second "you need to take this things because what the scriptures say about me being counted as a criminal are about to happen, and this time you'll need supplies for food and something to deter bandits and/or defend yourself with."
I completely agree that each of these interpretations is at least plausible. However, I think the textual evidence supports my position better, although I concede the case is not clear. Here is the text in the NASB:
And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." 36And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.37For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'And He was numbered with transgressors'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
One problem with your reading is that it has Jesus giving the provisioning instructions (belt, bag, sword)
not so that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor but rather because of a second-order
consequence of Jesus being seen as a transgressor on
other grounds (you refer to Jesus being accused of blasphemy as these other grounds). Here are some problems with this:
1. If Jesus is thinking in terms of His being seen as a transgressor for reasons
other than being part of armed band
and is giving the provisioning instruction for the specific reason that his followers will soon be on their own, His actual words connecting this putative provisioning instruction to His being seen a transgressor are
misleading to us, the intended audience for the gospel writer’s account. And it is pretty clear why. Luke knows that Jesus needs to go to the cross
at a time of Jesus’s own choosing (Jesus very deliberately chooses Passover as the time to do so). Therefore, there is clearly a motive for Jesus to get Himself arrested and being seen in armed company is a great pretext for being arrested. So you can see how if Luke is recounting something related
to provisioning followers for a time on their own, he (Luke) presents Jesus as saying something that could easily be misunderstood as an instruction to make Jesus look like a transgressor to get Himself arrested.
2. Even apart from the confusion engendered per item 1, it is at least a little odd that Jesus would connect his being seen as a transgressor to what is clearly a
second order consequence of His being seen as a transgressor – namely that His followers will soon be on their own. There are
many consequences of Jesus being seen as a transgressor, not just that His followers will be on their own. To be fair, though, one could indeed argue that the reference to a preceding provisioning instruction (verse 35) will lead the reader to conclude that the matter at issue here is, indeed the question of the followers being sent out. However, if you look at a literal translation, it seems at least arguable that Jesus deliberately connects only the sword (to the exclusion of the belt and purse) to the thing about Jesus being seen as a transgressor:
Then said he to them, `But, now, he who is having a bag, let him take [it] up, and in like manner also a scrip; and he who is not having, let him sell his garment, and buy a sword,37for I say to you, that yet this that hath been written it behoveth to be fulfilled in me: And with lawless ones he was reckoned, for also the things concerning me have an end.'
I draw attention to the semi-colon after “scrip”; to me, this suggests that Jesus is done with the belt and purse stuff and only connects the
sword to Jesus being seen as a transgressor. If my inference is correct, the argument becomes much stronger that Jesus is not, after all, giving a provisioning instruction. However, I concede this is not a particular powerful argument, and I think we need some scholar who can speak authoritatively as to how the original text would read vis a vis my proposal that the transgressor bit only connects to the sword, and not to the belt and purse.
3. The “two swords is enough” statement. While again not definitive, I believe this qualification tends to support my view precisely because while two swords in a group are certainly enough to make Jesus look like a transgressor, it is not really enough for self-defence. And if the disciples were expected to
disperse, the self-defence argument becomes really implausible because under such a scenario you would expect Jesus to instruct
everyone to get a sword. But even if the disciples stay together, I suggest that saying “two is enough” works against “self-defence” argument since you would normally expect that each person should be armed, even if travelling in a group. I do not know how many followers we are talking about here, but two swords seems to fall quite short of what would be needed for self-defence.
4. Finally, I believe that believing the swords are recommended for self-defence on the road is really not consistent with Jesus’s rather consistent pacifist line (“love your enemies”, “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”, and other stuff).
Having said all this, I repeat that you are the first person to raise what I think to be plausible counterargument to what I am suggesting. So even though I think the evidence still tilts us towards the view I am proposing, I concede that your argument is not without its merits.
Note that I realize that I have not addressed all of the elements of your position – I will, but this post is already very long.
