What was Christ saying?

[Packrat]

I was wondering how one would interpret the passage in Luke 22:36, 38 in light of the passage Matthew 5:38-42. Does Christ mean to say that we should kill with the sword or defend ourselves? Later in Luke, someone strikes off the ear of another and Christ seems to object to it strongly. Why would he say to sell your cloak and buy a sword and then be against using your sword? Did he mean that his followers may defend themselves but not him because he had to be killed to fulfill the Torah?

Should we take the passage in Luke literally or figuratively or the passage in Matthew literally or figuratively? Or should we just take it all in light of the culture during that period? It seems that Luke 22:36 is advocating self-defense when Christ clearly says not to resist evil in Matthew 5:39. What's going on here? Any thoughts?

 

[Fnerb]

Someone posted a question regarding Luke 22 on our Synod website

The answer:

-------
In Luke 22::36, Jesus mentioned the sword to warn the disciples that hard and dangerous times lay ahead.

We read at verse 38: "The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied." He does not mean that two swords are enough for them to resist violence directed against them as gospel messengers. With "That is enough" he is saying, "That is enough talk like that."

Jesus' reference to the sword is to spiritual weapons, the word, faith, love, etc.
-------

This reference to spiritual weapons would make sense in lue of the command given in Matthew.

 

[Packrat]

Someone posted a question regarding Luke 22 on our Synod website

The answer:

-------
In Luke 22::36, Jesus mentioned the sword to warn the disciples that hard and dangerous times lay ahead.

We read at verse 38: "The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied." He does not mean that two swords are enough for them to resist violence directed against them as gospel messengers. With "That is enough" he is saying, "That is enough talk like that."

Jesus' reference to the sword is to spiritual weapons, the word, faith, love, etc.
-------

This reference to spiritual weapons would make sense in lue of the command given in Matthew.

It seems like he could just have been warning them about hard times ahead, but unless the context of the comment he made supports this conclusion, I'd have to say that this conclusion is a leap in logic. It's like teaching multiplication to a kid for the first time and saying that 2 * 3 = 6 without going into the addition process first and show how - from their perspective - it does equal six.

I just need to be convinced from my perspective. And at the moment, the comment Christ made seems to be within two alternative contexts: 1. the context that Christ was going to be killed and his followers might later be arrested so they need to defend themselves, and 2. the context that he seemed opposed to physical self-defense at an earlier time in his life and was opposed to the prospect of his followers defending him (not necessarily themselves).

I'm looking at this from an atheist's perspective at the moment even though I'm a Christian. So what's to keep me from saying that Christ was contradicting himself? Why do you suggest that Christ was referring to a spiritual sword rather than material? Why do you think that Christ was saying, "That's enough talk about this nonsense," when someone showed him two swords, rather than saying, "That would be a sufficient quantity of swords"?

In other words, what's the reasoning behind your conclusions from an atheist's perspective? Note that you can't claim, "God does not contradict himself." That would be insufficient reasoning to convince someone, who does not believe in God, of what Christ did actually mean when he said what he said.

 

[Packrat]

So far as I'm concerned, he was not contradicting himself, but I'm still at a loss as to what he was referring to when he told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords. Another passage does come to mind where he is talking to a rich man. THe rich man asks him what he must do to get into heaven or something like that, and Christ tells him to sell all that he has and give it to the poor and follow him.

I don't exactly know where that leads me either, so I'm still a bit confused about the passage in Luke. The thing is - it is obvious that Christ does not want physical violence from what he said before in Matthew and his clear objection to violence when his disciple injured another for him. It is also clear from his own testimony that if he was of this world then his followers would fight for him... So it's clear that he's against violence, but it's not clear as to what he meant by 'sword'. Not to me anyway. If you supported your conclusions with sufficient reasoning, then that might make a difference. Thanks for posting though. I appreciate it.

 

[RND]

Someone posted a question regarding Luke 22 on our Synod website

The answer:

-------
In Luke 22::36, Jesus mentioned the sword to warn the disciples that hard and dangerous times lay ahead.

We read at verse 38: "The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied." He does not mean that two swords are enough for them to resist violence directed against them as gospel messengers. With "That is enough" he is saying, "That is enough talk like that."

Jesus' reference to the sword is to spiritual weapons, the word, faith, love, etc.
-------

This reference to spiritual weapons would make sense in lue of the command given in Matthew.

Good post.

 

[Rick W]

It seems like he could just have been warning them about hard times ahead,

Allow me to paraphrase a reference here from a study bible:

Luke 22:36
A figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They would need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who bears the sword. (Romans 13:4)

 

[Rick W]

Jesus' reference to the sword is to spiritual weapons, the word, faith, love, etc.
-------

This reference to spiritual weapons would make sense in lue of the command given in Matthew.

Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

 

[Packrat]

Allow me to paraphrase a reference here from a study bible:

Luke 22:36
A figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They would need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who bears the sword. (Romans 13:4)

So you're relating Paul's appeal to Caesar and his sword of authority for protection against the Jews to Christ telling his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords? Were they supposed to buy swords of authority? :-D I'm still not quite there. If you want to spell it out for me, I promise I'll try to think hard. :x But as is, I still don't get the connection and I have my doubts about the analogy. I still appreciate everyone's efforts, and I have studied it a little on my own. It just'll take more than one brain for this one I think.

 

[Packrat]

Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

One of the things I thought about when considering the passage in Luke was the sword of the spirit described in Ephesians, but Christ is not the one speaking in Ephesians. Paul may have met Christ, but how are we to know that the sword of the spirit that Paul describes is the same sword(s) that Christ told his disciples to sell their cloaks for? It could be a good conclusion if the connection was clear. That's all I'm asking for - is the connection. Right now, I'm just not seeing it. :-?

 

[cyberjosh]

Fnerb stole my thunder, took the words right out of my mouth. In verse 38 when they said, "'Lord, look, here are two swords.' And He said to them, "It is enough" Jesus was indeed saying "Enough of such talk." They misunderstood what Jesus was saying. Earlier there is an equal yet opposite command when Jesus send his disciples into Israel to preach and he told them not to bring any thing with them but to stay with people as they traveled. That is because Jesus was commanding them to act in trust of God's providence by people willing to listen to their message. However hostility rose against Jesus and as a result against the disciples, and so Jesus was saying they would have to fend for themselves now, because hospitality would be hard to come by. And even back then if you had a real sword it was used more for self-defense against robbers.

 

[Packrat]

Fnerb stole my thunder, took the words right out of my mouth. Jesus in verse 38 when they said, "'Lord, look, here are two swords.' And He said to them, "It is enough."" Jesus was indeed saying "Enough of such talk." They misunderstood what Jesus was saying. Earlier there is an equal yet opposite command when Jesus send his disciples into Israel to preach and he told them not to bring any thing with them but to stay with people as they traveled. That is because Jesus was commanding them to act in trust of God's providence by people willing to listen to their message. However hostility rose against Jesus and as a result against the disciples, and so Jesus was saying they would have to fend for themselves now, because hospitality would be hard to come by. And even back then if you had a real sword it was used more for self-defense against robbers.

See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=15; That doesn't seem like Christ was saying for them not to talk of such nonsense. It seems more like he's saying that two swords is sufficient. Sufficient for what though? I do remember another passage, however, that his disciples misunderstood him and he corrected them on it; just nothing pertaining to this particular passage. So they could have misunderstood him... I know I certainly do.

But another point comes to mind. If he was telling them, "That's enough foolishness!" then why later on does one of them attack a person coming to get Christ? Shouldn't they have already known that Christ was against their foolish contemplation of using swords to fight? Maybe so. Maybe not? But again I also have to ask, "Shouldn't his disciples have known his purpose and have known that he intended to be killed because they had been with him for all this time?" And when they show active self-defense on the part of their Master, I have to answer, "No, they did not know, despite being with him for as long as they were his disciples."

But back to your point, Cybershark... I can see how the context might support that interpretation now of fending for oneself. He first poses the question of whether or not they were in need of anything when he sent them out on their journey. They said, "No." Then he seems to randomly comment that they should sell their cloaks and buy swords. Your conclusion, Cybershark, seems to be a logical conclusion, but I'm not quite convinced as I don't quite know whether the sword they should buy that he is referring to is a 'Spiritual Sword' or a 'Physical Sword' or is metaphorical for self-defense or metaphorical for fending for oneself instead of having a master watching over you, etc.

If I can find out the meaning of the sword and Luke 22:38, I'll probably be satisfied. So I'm getting there, but not there yet. :wink:

 

[cyberjosh]

See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=15; That doesn't seem like Christ was saying for them not to talk of such nonsense. It seems more like he's saying that two swords is sufficient. Sufficient for what though? I do remember another passage, however, that his disciples misunderstood him and he corrected them on it; just nothing pertaining to this particular passage. So they could have misunderstood him... I know I certainly do.

The disciples often misunderstood Jesus. I can give you several examples if you like. And my analysis of what Jesus meant came not from myself but from many commentaries I have read which support that theory.

But another point comes to mind. If he was telling them, "That's enough foolishness!" then why later on does one of them attack a person coming to get Christ? Shouldn't they have already known that Christ was against their foolish contemplation of using swords to fight? Maybe so. Maybe not?

I see where you are coming from but let's remember we are talking about Mr. Foot-in-mouth Simon Peter. Peter was rash on several occasions. It is clear Peter didn't know Jesus' will in this situation or accept the fact that Jesus had to be taken and killed, otherwise he would not have intervened and Jesus wouldn't have rebuked him for cuting off Malchus' ear.

But again I also have to ask, "Shouldn't his disciples have known his purpose and have known that he intended to be killed because they had been with him for all this time?"

Actually no. Jesus even early on in his ministry had told the disciples about his death and ressurection, and found himself having to repeat himself several times in his ministry. The disciples even admitted on the night of Jesus' arrest that they had a hard time understanding some of Jesus' teachings because when John tells us in his gospel that Jesus spoke plainly to them they said, "Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech." (John 16:29)

And when they show active self-defense on the part of their Master, I have to answer, "No, they did not know, despite being with him for as long as they were his disciples."

You got it.

But back to your point, Cybershark... I can see how the context might support that interpretation now of fending for oneself. He first poses the question of whether or not they were in need of anything when he sent them out on their journey. They said, "No." Then he seems to randomly comment that they should sell their cloaks and buy swords. Your conclusion, Cybershark, seems to be a logical conclusion, but I'm not quite convinced as I don't quite know whether the sword they should buy that he is referring to is a 'Spiritual Sword' or a 'Physical Sword' or is metaphorical for self-defense or metaphorical for fending for oneself instead of having a master watching over you, etc.

I might be able to find one of those commentaries that backed up the "Enough of such talk" interpretation.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Look at this commentary on verses 36-38 on this link. It goes into in depth, though the commentator admits the obscurity of the passage.

 

[Packrat]

I think I finally arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.

Matthew 5:38-42 does not teach us that we should not defend ourselves. It says to not resist the evil done to us. This is a progressive philosophy when dealing with humankind because humans can reason. You cannot reason with a lion or a wolf, so why not defend yourself against such beasts? And if we can defend ourself against animals at least, then who or what else and in what situations can we defend ourselves and others against harm?

The passage does say that we should not resist evil, but what about violence? I think there are two types of violence in relation to this passage: random acts of violence (such as ravenous animals preying on others) and acts of violence done out of hatred by a human being.

We already know that the context of Christ's command to buy swords in Luke 22:36 does not support the idea of uprising in violence due to the passages Matthew 26:52, Luke 22:51, and Matthew 5:38-42. Also the fact that he first commanded that every man buy a sword if he is in need of one and the fact that he said two swords is enough for about eleven men is a clear contradiction. It would be more reasonable to assume that by 'swords' he meant something other than literal swords just as he probably meant something other than strictly a literal temple in John 2:19. To assume otherwise would mean that Christ blatantly contradicted himself within the space of 45 seconds or so. Could his memory be that short?

Part of the fruit of the Spirit is peace and patience (Galatians 5:22-23). For a Christian to get into a fight with another over a slap in the face or insult shows that the Christian has pride and lacks self-control (another part of the fruit of the Spirit). It also is not a progressive philosophy. It returns evil for evil and the world is plunged into violence ever afterward. But in all things moderation. Note that in Matthew 5:38-42 it never says that if our son is kidnapped and killed give also unto the attacker your daughter. :wink: