Bible Study LUKE 22:35-38 BUYING A SWORD

[GodsGrace]

At the Last Supper Jesus tells the Apostles to sell their cloak and buy a sword.
Do you believe this was literal or symbolic?
Why does Jesus tell the Apostles to arm themselves?
Or does He?

Jesus does say that the first time they went out without a sword.



Luke 22:35-38
35 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."
36 And 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."
38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

 

[Corn Pop]

I think it was literal because living in the stone age going on long journeys was dangerous and Jesus would have known that so a sword could be used as a deterrant. No one was going to jump out the bush from the dusty path and rob them on there dangerous journey or anything when they seen they had swords and could defend themsleves.

They went without money belts the first time yet the next time they were carrying goods so Jesus told them to sell there coat and get a detterant.

I think it was literal and the reason for having one was only for a deterrant. Peoppe think twice when they see someone can defend themselves.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think it was literal because living in the stone age going on long journeys was dangerous and Jesus would have known that so a sword could be used as a deterrant. No one was going to jump out the bush from the dusty path and rob them on there dangerous journey or anything when they seen they had swords and could defend themsleves.

They went without money belts the first time yet the next time they were carrying goods so Jesus told them to sell there coat and get a detterant.

I think it was literal and the reason for having one was only for a deterrant. Peoppe think twice when they see someone can defend themselves.

The Stone Age? LoL.

I think it was for the same reasons you did (except I don't go back quite that far).

 

[JLB]

At the Last Supper Jesus tells the Apostles to sell their cloak and buy a sword.
Do you believe this was literal or symbolic?
Why does Jesus tell the Apostles to arm themselves?
Or does He?

Jesus does say that the first time they went out without a sword.



Luke 22:35-38
35 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."
36 And 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."
38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

I believe He instructed them to take along a literal money belt, and a literal bag.

I have to believe He was referring to a literal sword.

A sword to use for protection from bandits and those who would murder them for what they have.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think it was literal because living in the stone age going on long journeys was dangerous and Jesus would have known that so a sword could be used as a deterrant. No one was going to jump out the bush from the dusty path and rob them on there dangerous journey or anything when they seen they had swords and could defend themsleves.

They went without money belts the first time yet the next time they were carrying goods so Jesus told them to sell there coat and get a detterant.

I think it was literal and the reason for having one was only for a deterrant. Peoppe think twice when they see someone can defend themselves.

Hi Corn Pop
Yes. I would tend to agree, although I've never thought of this before.
This came up while discussing the conflict with Iran....
The other person said we, as Christians, should NEVER engage in any type of armed protection...
even personal.

Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe He instructed them to take along a literal money belt, and a literal bag.

I have to believe He was referring to a literal sword.

A sword to use for protection from bandits and those who would murder them for what they have.

Agreed.
I'm more confident now that my understanding was correct.
For exactly the same reason that you, Corn Pop and Hidden In Him believe.
(not everything in scripture is spiritual)

Thanks!

 

[for_his_glory]

Luke 22:35-38 is the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 53 that has been fulfilled in Jesus life and death being numbered with the transgressors that had to be fulfilled. By having swords the question would be, why only two as Jesus said two swords were enough.

Only having two swords since there were twelve Disciples could be for literal fights defending themselves or defending Jesus like Peter did in the Garden of Gethsemane, but this would come against Jesus teaching them about love and peace. The reason they were told to buy swords could be that others would perceive them as being lawless aligning with Isaiah's prophecy.

 

[JLB]

Luke 22:35-38 is the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 53 that has been fulfilled in Jesus life and death being numbered with the transgressors that had to be fulfilled. By having swords the question would be, why only two as Jesus said two swords were enough.

Only having two swords since there were twelve Disciples could be for literal fights defending themselves or defending Jesus like Peter did in the Garden of Gethsemane, but this would come against Jesus teaching them about love and peace. The reason they were told to buy swords could be that others would perceive them as being lawless aligning with Isaiah's prophecy.

So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.” Luke 22:38


Do you believe Jesus was referring to two literal swords?

 

[for_his_glory]

So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.” Luke 22:38


Do you believe Jesus was referring to two literal swords?

Could be literal as I explained in post # 7 as the Disciples showed Jesus two swords. The swords, after the death and resurrection of Jesus could also be symbolic as being the word (sword) of God for our protection as we fear not what man can do to us, even unto physical death, Matthew 10:28.

 

[hawkman]

The other person said we, as Christians, should NEVER engage in any type of armed protection...
even personal.

The question for them would be can the Christian just carry the sword as a deterrent to violence ?

 

[JLB]

Could be literal as I explained in post # 7 as the Disciples showed Jesus two swords. The swords, after the death and resurrection of Jesus could also be symbolic as being the word (sword) of God for our protection as we fear not what man can do to us, even unto physical death, Matthew 10:28.

Do you believe they were symbolic or literal or don’t know?

For me personally it’s clear that they were literal swords, and literal money belts and literal bags, in which having these things on the road required the literal use of protection against people.

 

[Corn Pop]

And remember Jesus told peter to put the sword down when he struck the ear, so some of his dociples obviosuly had literal swords.

 

[for_his_glory]

Do you believe they were symbolic or literal or don’t know?

For me personally it’s clear that they were literal swords, and literal money belts and literal bags, in which having these things on the road required the literal use of protection against people.

I already explained the two swords were literal in Luke 22:35-38 as we read in John 18:10-11 that Peter carried one cutting off the ear of the high priest servant sent to arrest Jesus and one other Disciple carried one since two were presented to Jesus.

 

[hawkman]

At the Last Supper Jesus tells the Apostles to sell their cloak and buy a sword.

That is a drastic measure because a cloak was an important piece of clothing , it could be used for sleeping warmth at night , especially outside .

Do you believe this was literal or symbolic?

The swords were necessary so that Jesus could be "counted among the transgressors " so yes literal swords .

But should swords now become standard equipment for apostles after what Jesus said , NO .
This section in Matt 26 shows us this .

Matthew 26:52 Context​

49And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. 50And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. 52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? 55In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

Why does Jesus tell the Apostles to arm themselves?

So that Jesus can be counted "among the transgressors " .

 

[JLB]

So that Jesus can be counted "among the transgressors " .

They didn’t need to have swords to be counted as transgressors.

It doesn’t seem likely that Jesus would tell His disciples to do something that would cause them to be a transgressors.

Jesus was destined to be taken by the Romans and to be tortured and beaten and crucified. Peter should not have used his sword against the Roman Soldier who was acting in the will of God.

Jesus understood this, Peter did not.

Later, as an old man Peter would be crucified upside down.

Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” John 21:18

On the other hand arming and equipping themselves for long journeys could be a practical way to fulfill their assignment.

Thieves and bandits may certainly take a different approach to trying to murder and kill those who are armed.

Each instance should stand on its own and each person or team should ask God for wisdom.

Today if we were to travel to a third world country for a missionary trip then a person would not go with a weapon… in my opinion.

However there are ministry teams that do have “security” travel with them to third world countries, and while they may be “unarmed” they are skilled in unarmed combat.

I think being led by the Spirit in every circumstance is best.

There is no one size fits all in these situations.

 

[hawkman]

They didn’t need to have swords to be counted as transgressors.

It doesn’t seem likely that Jesus would tell His disciples to do something that would cause them to be a transgressors.

I think Jesus wanted there to be no doubt that He be" counted" with the transgressors , counted with but in actuality not a transgressor .

Today if we were to travel to a third world country for a missionary trip then a person would not go with a weapon… in my opinion.

I agree .

 

[jasonc]

my church because it is known to protest ,outreach the abortion clinic. we therefore have armed elders .
one can't argue a missionary can't be and be consistent with this . the mission field is everywhere

 

[jasonc]

my church because it is known to protest ,outreach the abortion clinic. we therefore have armed elders .
one can't argue a missionary can't be and be consistent with this . the mission field is everywhere

irsco has informed the pastor they have heard death threats against anti choice churches

 

[JLB]

I think Jesus wanted there to be no doubt that He be" counted" with the transgressors , counted with but in actuality not a transgressor .

What transgression specifically does having a sword entail?

Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53:12

And He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many,

Compare to this in Hebrews 9 -

so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28


Jesus who knew no sin, became sin, and therefore became a transgressor and thereby He was numbered with the transgressors.

He chose to suffer the humiliation as a sinner and transgressor that we might taste of His righteousness, not only taste of it, but that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ.

 

[hawkman]

What transgression specifically does having a sword entail?

Cutting off an ear ?