Buying a Sword

[Guest]

Solo - I would like to begin our discussion about "buying a sword".

Before we begin I want to make sure that we are on the same page.

Therefore, would you mind replying with the exact verse and translation that you were referring too.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest]

Solo - I was looking forward to a discussion on this topic. Since I see you have not provided that verses you were referring to, might I supply the verses and ask if this is where you referring too:

Luke 22:36-38

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.

37"For 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."

38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

 

[Solo]

Begin.

 

[Guest]

Basically the question is in the passage of Luke 22:36-38 is Jesus approving the use of the sword through the command to 'buy a sword'.

To understand this passage, let's put it into proper context. After the instituion of the Lord's Supper, there was a dispute among the disciples who would be regarded as the 'greatest.' Even up to this last hour, the disciples had a hard time understanding the ministry of Jesus Christ. He had been telling them of his suffering and death for sometime, and yet here we have the disciples (thinking in terms of an earthly kingdom) jocking for position in the kingdom. Add to that rumors of Christ's enemies plotting to kill Him, it seems only natural that the disciples would seek to protect Him - to the point that we learn there were two swords already in the Upper Room.

After hearing that Satan has demanded permission to 'shift him like wheat' (verse 31-32), Peter says that he is ready to go to prison and to death for the Lord." Yet we learn later that Peter had planned to use at least one other method before prison or death - that by the sword.

The words of Jesus in regards to 'buying a sword' follow. But is it a command or approval - or is it a rebuke of Peter's lack of faith and a teaching to the rest of the disciples?

Jesus reminds them in verse 35 that "When I sent you out without money belt and bad and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you? " To which the disciples had to admit that No, they lack nothing. (cf Matt10:9ff; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3ff)

Now Jesus seems to speak to them almost ironically to say that even though they know by experience that you can get along without any of these things, be sure now to equip yourselves with purse, wallet, and even a sword!

When the disciples admitted that they already had two swords among their midst, in an expression of despair Jesus says "it is enough". (verse 38)

As we continue through Luke 22 we know that when Peter does pull out the sword to strike, Christ commands him to put it away and immediately heals the ear of His enemy. Jesus then turns to priests and officers that came to arrest him: "Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me, but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.". (verse 52-53).

Why would Jesus tell HIS disciples to arm themselves, when he asks those who came to arrest him why they needed to arm themselves?

Why would Jesus tell HIS disciples to arm themselves, when Peter did use the sword Jese commanded him to stop?

Not to mention that in verses 39-46 when the disciples are to be praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus warns them that they are to be in prayer so as to avoid temptation. Could it be that Jesus is telling them to pray so that they are not tempted to use physical violence when they come to arrest Jesus?

This is not a passage that advocates the 'buying of a sword'.

 

[jgredline]

Actually, I know the question is directed at Solo, but if I may simply say this...and as you mentioned look at the context....

Did Jesus tell them to purchase a sword to carve apples? ''NO''

Did Jesus tell them to buy a sword to protect Him? ''NO''

Now look at the context....Jesus knew he would not be with them much longer....Up until then, he protected them and now that he is going to be physically leaving them, he would not be there to protect them....He told them to buy a sword to defend themselves.....

Jesus was not a pacifist, but truly a rebel....

 

[Guest]

JR - this is an open forum, so all may join into the discussion.

Yes - let's look at the context.

Nowhere does it suggest that Jesus told them to buy a sword to protect themselves. Especially since all they had were 'two swords'. Clearly, this would not be enough to defend themselves. At the most, only the two holding the swords would be able to defend themselves.

Also - when did Jesus ever physically defend the disciples? You say that up until them Jesus protected them - how? If the disciples were dependent upon Jesus for 'defense' while he was with them, are you suggesting that once Jesus died and rose that He would no longer be able to 'defend' them?

Also, if this was an important command - that the disciples now needed swords to defend themselves, why would this not be repeated throughout the Gospels?

Not to mention Jesus' teachings that when he left, he would provide the Holy Spirit - surely the Holy Spirit would be able to 'defend them'.

 

[jgredline]

aLONE

There are 4 or 5 views of this passage. Tomorrow I will look up the passages and explain my position, but if memory serves me right, read Matt 10...
and you will see why Jesus is now telling them to sell there stuff....

Something to keep in mind....Were the disciples ever hungry? Were they ever in any danger? No...Jesus took care of ''everything''....He knew the persecution that awaited them. Could he have protected them from Heaven? Of course. Would he? Yes, but in order for the disciples to have a testimony they would need to face the trials and tribulations that awaited them....

By the way in verse 38 the greek word for enough is ἱκανός..This adj precedes the verb εἰμί....So in this context, Jesus was rebuking his desciples for obviously buying only two swords... The Greek literaly says ''ENOUGH IT IS''....aNYWay tomarrow I will look up the passages...

What do u make of the passages Michael?

 

[Guest]

By the way in verse 38 the greek word for enough is ἱκανός..This adj precedes the verb εἰμί....So in this context, Jesus was rebuking his desciples for obviously buying only two swords... The Greek literaly says ''ENOUGH IT IS''....aNYWay tomarrow I will look up the passages...

How can Jesus rebuke them for only buying two swords - when Jesus just GAVE them the command to go buy them?

That doesn't make sense. There isn't a time gap from Jesus saying "Go sell and buy swords" to when Jesus says "it is enough".

There is noway that Jesus' saying "it is enough' is a rebuke that they do not have enough. Rather, as I explained above it is a remark more of despair that the disciples are going to now rely on swords - a testament to the disciples lack of faith. Whereas before they needed nothing.

And yes, JR, I can agree with you that the disciples need to face the trials and tribulations that awaited them - but what would their testimony be?

We had nothing and Jesus provided and took care of us, or We had swords that protected us?

Therefore did they find their protection in Jesus or the Sword?

 

[jgredline]

How can Jesus rebuke them for only buying two swords - when Jesus just GAVE them the command to go buy them?

That doesn't make sense. There isn't a time gap from Jesus saying "Go sell and buy swords" to when Jesus says "it is enough".

There is noway that Jesus' saying "it is enough' is a rebuke that they do not have enough. Rather, as I explained above it is a remark more of despair that the disciples are going to now rely on swords - a testament to the disciples lack of faith. Whereas before they needed nothing.

And yes, JR, I can agree with you that the disciples need to face the trials and tribulations that awaited them - but what would their testimony be?

We had nothing and Jesus provided and took care of us, or We had swords that protected us?

Therefore did they find their protection in Jesus or the Sword?

I will work on my answer through out the day....Now I have a question for you. Why did Jesus tell them to buy swords?

 

[TanNinety]

Now I have a question for you(aLoneVoice). Why did Jesus tell them to buy swords?

Now Jesus seems to speak to them almost ironically to say that even though they know by experience that you can get along without any of these things, be sure now to equip yourselves with purse, wallet, and even a sword!

When the disciples admitted that they already had two swords among their midst, in an expression of despair Jesus says "it is enough".

I think aLoneVoice already answered that question. While I am still searching for an answer, I admit that I am sympathetic to his point of view. It seems to be a statement that goes on a hyperbole when He says "sell your clothes and buy a sword". I am interested in what you think/find out jg.

 

[jgredline]

I think aLoneVoice already answered that question. While I am still searching for an answer, I admit that I am sympathetic to his point of view. It seems to be a statement that goes on a hyperbole when He says "sell your clothes and buy a sword". I am interested in what you think/find out jg.

Tan
I don't see that as an answer. I would be curious to see what you think as well.
I know of 4 or 5 views and all have good points, but I believe my point has the strongest support....But if there is a better answer, I will certainly take it to heart...I am more interested in the truth of the scriptures than my opinion.

 

[lovely]

Hi everyone,

This is probably not the first case of the disciples thinking carnally when they should have been thinking spiritually. My children always giggle about the time in the boat when they thought Jesus was talking about them forgetting bread after the miracles of the loaves and fishes. lol

My thoughts...

Christ had sent them out the first time, and arranged that their needs would be met, but now that time was over and the Cruxifiction was at hand. Christ would no longer be received by the people, but murdered by them. Isaiah 53:12 is quoted by Christ, that He was numbered with the Transgressors. That time of His honored reception by the people, as with His entry into Jerusalem, was now over and the Passion would begin, and the bitter cup would finally be consumed. I believe Christ was preparing them for this time, and that these two different set of instructions were used by Him to contrast that shift, and to tell them to prepare themselves. Christ did not continue the discussion, because He didn't need to make them understand at that moment. I am sure they understood later.

The Lord bless all of you.

 

[jgredline]

Hi everyone,

This is probably not the first case of the disciples thinking carnally when they should have been thinking spiritually. My children always giggle about the time in the boat when they thought Jesus was talking about them forgetting bread after the miracles of the loaves and fishes. lol

My thoughts...

Christ had sent them out the first time, and arranged that their needs would be met, but now that time was over and the Cruxifiction was at hand. Christ would no longer be received by the people, but murdered by them. Isaiah 53:12 is quoted by Christ, that He was numbered with the Transgressors. That time of His honored reception by the people, as with His entry into Jerusalem, was now over and the Passion would begin, and the bitter cup would finally be consumed. I believe Christ was preparing them for this time, and that these two different set of instructions were used by Him to contrast that shift, and to tell them to prepare themselves. Christ did not continue the discussion, because He didn't need to make them understand at that moment. I am sure they understood later.

The Lord bless all of you.

Exactly and I will pigy back on this a little bit later.....Thanks Lovely

 

[Guest]

I will work on my answer through out the day....Now I have a question for you. Why did Jesus tell them to buy swords?

Jgredline - I believed I answered that question already. Jesus was speaking ironically. The disciples already knew through experience that they could do without purse and wallet.

I would also suggest that there is no evidence or support for your intrepretation lovely, for a couple of reasons:

1) Let's assume that Jesus was commanding them to purchase swords - why when it was revealed that they already had two did Jesus say "it was enough"? Clearly there were more disciples than just two - shouldn't they all be 'armed' to defend themselves?

2) Clearly "it is enough" cannot be a rebuke as in they needed to have more, because if Jesus was commanding them to purchase swords, if just gave that command. Therefore, "It is enough" must mean something else besides a rebuke.

3) If Jesus was preparing them to defend themselves because of persecution to come, why when Jesus was arrested did Jesus tell the disciples to put their swords away? Nowhere in the exchange (Luke 22:47-53) does Jesus say that now isn't the time to use the swords. Rather he is clear that it must "Stop! No more of this." (Luke 22:51)

4) For the past days and weeks, and throughout his whole earthly ministry, Jesus was preparing the disciples for the day that they would be without Him - nowhere throughout this time did Jesus ever communicate that they would need a sword or that they were to defend themselves. In fact, during the prayer time at the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus tells them that they should be in prayer so that "they may not enter into temptation" (Luke 22:46).

5) "Buying a sword" for defense or protection contradicts Christ's message to the disciples in Luke 21:10-24. Specificailly in verses 12-20. No where in this does Jesus tell the disciples to defend themselves. Rather he says just the opposite. In verse 14 Jesus says that they are to "Make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves". Why would Jesus tell them NOT to defend themselves, and then turn around and tell them to "buy a sword" for the purpose of defense?

 

[jgredline]

I almost forgot about this thread, so I will toss u a few things rather quickly....

Mostly scripture....

In Matt 10:34 Jesus said ''34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Does Jesus sound like a pacifist?....NO.


2 kings 19:35-37
35 And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpsesâ€â€all dead. 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at Nineveh. 37 Now it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the temple of Nisroch his god, that his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Then Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place.

Here you have none other than Jesus himself slaughtering 185,000 folks !!!

Pacifist? NO.....


Malachi 3:6
"For I am the Lord, I change not."
tHIS verse means that God does not change.....Jesus does not change...The Holy Spirit does not change......


John 2:15-16
15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!â€Â

Folks Jesus chased out these people with a ''weapon''...

Does this sound like a pacifist ? NO.....


sO here are a few examples that show a part of Gods Nature.....
mORE to come....

 

[Guest]

JG - I appreciate your comments. However, not one of them addressed any of the questions that I asked, nor did they address the specific verses we were looking at from Luke.

However, allow me to point out a few things.

First - I believe you have a misunderstanding of the word Pacifist. Pacifism is not inaction. Rather, it merely constrains the type of action - not using violence.

And while Jesus did hold a 'weapon' - a whip of cords - a careful reading of the passage shows that Jesus did not use the whip on any man. Rather, he used it to drive out the sheep and oxen.

I seriously doubt that one man would have been able to drive out all the merchants, not to mention the temple police, even if that man was holding a whip. And yes, I realize that we are not talking about any ordinary man. And that would be the point. When ever Jesus spoke, he spoke as one with authority. I would contend that this is just one of those times - that it was His words and authority that drive the people out of the temple - not the whip.

Secondly - in regards to the passage from Matthew - let's place it in the proper context.

Jesus is not outline a course of action for his followers, but rather what His followers would face for following Him. Jesus is not saying that we are to use swords, but that swords might be used on us.

Lastly - In regards to war in the Old Testament - that was completely done by the authority that is in God, and God alone. Although we are followers of God - God alone has the authority and ability to provide salvation - not the followers. God alone has the authority and ability to pass judgement - not the followers.

-------------

I am more than willing to begin a thread on 'war' if you like. However, perhaps first we should exhaust the passage in Luke.

 

[Veritas]

aLoneVoice,

I think Jesus' disciples took Him too literally as well. I agree this is not a passage that advocates the 'buying of the sword'

I believe there are others however. And I don't believe God's "violence" is limited to only OT times.

Romans 13:3-4 says:

Then do what is right and he (rulers and authorities) will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

I believe we can take that one literally.

I think the key to violence/nonviolence is in this verse...

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Romans 12:18

Sometimes its beyond our control.

 

[jgredline]

Like I explained earlier and as Lovely said as well; The context shows that the swords were for sell defense....

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one [Luke 22:36].

You had better pack suitcase and get your traveler’s checks if you are going out for the Lord today and give out the gospel. You had better be prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones. We are living in difficult days. The Lord said, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.†Why? For self protection, of course. They were living in days that required a sword. We need to recognize that fact also. If we do not resist evil today, all kinds of evil will befall us. We could end up in the hospital or have some of our loved ones slain.
McGee, J. V.


Normally I am not one for commentaries, but like I said earlier. There are 4 or 5 differant views of this passage and this is the view that I hold to especially in the light of Matt 10....

 

[Guest]

aLoneVoice,

I think Jesus' disciples took Him too literally as well. I agree this is not a passage that advocates the 'buying of the sword'

I believe there are others however. And I don't believe God's "violence" is limited to only OT times.

Romans 13:3-4 says:

Then do what is right and he (rulers and authorities) will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

I believe we can take that one literally.

I think the key to violence/nonviolence is in this verse...

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Romans 12:18

Sometimes its beyond our control.

Veritas - I did not mean to suggest that God's 'violence' was limited to the OT. I was rather responding to the refernce JG made to the OT

I would also suggest that Romans 13 does not advocate for the believer to use violence - or even participate with violence done by the hand of the state.

I would suggest that Romans 13 teaches that rules of state (governments, etc) have a divine purpose in keeping evil in check - and that very well might mean that the state itself is using sinful means. However, even though God may use the state that does not mean that God approves of the deeds, nor does it mean that it makes the rules righteous and holy in God's eyes.

To keep Romans 13 in the proper context - we need to remember that Paul wrote Romans with Nero on the throne of the Roman empire. I do not believe that Paul was teaching that Nero was God's earthly representative.

 

[Guest]

Like I explained earlier and as Lovely said as well; The context shows that the swords were for sell defense....

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one [Luke 22:36].

JG - I am sorry, but the context does not support your claim. You are merely looking at one verse, rather than the context of the whole passage.

But let's assume you are correct that only TWO SWORDS were to be used for self-defense (How many disciples were there again, and only two were to be for 'self-defense'?)

Why then when Peter used his sword for self-defense, did Jesus tell him to stop?

Also, why is there no record of Paul carrying a sword? No record of Peter carrying a sword after this scenario? No record of Timothy, Titus, Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, Stephen, etc. Not one mention of them using a sword for self-defense. Does this not strike you as odd?

Yes, I agree we are in troubling times - we have been since the Resurrection. However, I would rather put my trust in the Lord than a sword. I would rather rely on Him, then Smith and Wesson. And If I were to be persecuted for my faith - I would give God the glory that I was deemed worthy to be persecuted as my Lord was.