Jesus says, buy a sword?

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Luke 22:35-38

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36 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.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
-------------------------

Yeah, I read the King James...

Anyway, I have asked about this a hundred times, and have gotten a hundred answers (many answers came from the 'ordained'), none of which I thought fit the character of Jesus, at least not how I understand him?

I believe in Free Will over Destiny for mortal man. While Jesus was a man, he was also God and knew his destiny. He knew there was no reason for a sword. Why would he tell his Disciples to buy one ...and then the mentioning that they already had two, Jesus says that's enough. If Jesus thinks the group of Disciples should have one sword, why wouldn't Jesus also think each Disciple should have one?

[dverna]

The passage makes little sense to me. Jesus would not have advised them to use a sword to protect themselves from the persecution that was to come. That does not fit His way.

I wonder if sword has a figurative meaning but I do not know what that could be. And why would two be enough?

[jmort]

I never forget Peter whipping out his sword and cutting the ear off one of the thugs arresting Jesus. Of course Jesus said to knock it off, but it shows that even after three years of learning from God incarnate, Peter was quick with his sword. He did not sit by with his thumb in his ear. There is so much to learn from the Bible.

[jmort]

The Betrayal of Jesus
…50“Friend,” Jesus replied, “do what you came for.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus, and arrested Him. 51At this, one of Jesus’ companions drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.…"
53Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

John 18:10
"Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."

[Ickisrulz]

"It is enough" possibly means "I have nothing more to say about the matter." Two swords was not enough for 11 guys going in different directions, so I don't think Jesus meant two swords were enough.

The disciples were a lot like many of today's preppers. Jesus told them (i.e., each of them) to take money (purse), food (bag) and a sword on their future travels and they fixated upon the weapon.

The sword was for defense against bandits that they might encounter on the roads. Money is necessary while traveling to buy things and food is also needed.

Things were going to be different for the disciples after Jesus departure and the instructions changed.

Edit: I have heard people claim the "sword" should be taken figuratively (God's word). But this would demand that everything else Jesus listed should be taken figuratively also. There's not justification for this other than some people do not like weapons.

[Blackwater]

For Jesus, the sword was probably as much of a symbol, as it was anything else. Of course it can be used as a weapon of self defense, and no doubt, Satan may well have had something in mind, and then changed it when he saw Christ and the disciples were ready, and knew Christ would not be allowed to be harmed anyway. Much of the Bible leaves us with questions, and only some sort of assumption can really give us much of an answer to some of the questions we have.

In this instance, the best I can make of it is that when Christ said two swords would be "enough," that he knew something we just don't and the disciples didn't either. Who knows what that might have been? But I'm no great gift to theology, so .... I'm interested to see what those who are more studied than I am have to say on this.

[Char-Gar]

There was a translation error in that text. Jesus actually said to buy a 45 Automatic.

[GhostHawk]

I have to admit this one always puzzled me.

In an age where a modern projectile weapon was a shepherds sling why not slings?

Why not a staff? Useful for walking in rough terrain, a simple staff can be a handy tool. And someone with some practice with one can give a man with a sword a spirited defense.

Why is 2 swords enough?

I do believe I understand the live by the sword and die by it. In my opinion a lot of that goes to mindset. If you are used to being a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Hit it hard enough and it goes away. Eventually that will come back to you though.

For myself I have no desire to do anyone harm. But I have an absolute desire to live my life on my terms. I will NOT be bullied or dictated to. Yes I am a control freak, and the freak I want to control is me. Just me, with perhaps just a little influence on my wife would be nice now and then.

And yet we are supposed to be like the lily's of the field, who neither work nor spin.

Hard to find that level of trust. Working on it but it is hard.

[Bzcraig]

Just read a couple of commentaries, it seems the scholars don't know either.

[Pine Baron]

Let's try Ehesians 6
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

[Char-Gar]

It could mean exactly what is says..i.e. Guys, things are at a critical stage and you need to survive it.

Jesus knew that all the power structure of his time were lining up to get him. He knew his time was running out and his plan for the survival of his ministry and meaning was the band of Apostles. They were plan A and there was no plan B. If they were picked off, everything was for naught. They had to survive.

Jesus chose not to defend himself by force, but he never said his followers should not as well. The use of self defense by Christians is much debated with some groups being willing to be passive while being slaughtered. There are others, like myself, that will resist evil with my last breath. I don't carry a sword, but I do carry a Smith and Wesson 38.

Sometimes we over think things.

[Hogtamer]

Yes Pine Baron, scripture edifies scripture. Christ comes again in Revelation with a sword coming out His mouth. The writer of Hebrews tells us the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword....in this context the sword seems to be the Spirit.

[kungfustyle]

To me this one says its ok to defend yourself. I had a kung fu school and my wife had that scripture made for me on a plaque. Really interesting point was the disciples were packing, they already had two. I've heard a few preachers picking on Peter about how he would rush into things and he pledge his life to follow Christ and lay down his life. One often overlooked point is Peter threw down when the guard came to get Jesus in the garden. Also most impressive is the cutting of the ear. If a person draws a sword from his left side and cuts on the draw, the servant saw it coming and leaned to get out of the way, but was just a little to slow and Peter got his ear. That servant had some fantastic reflexes.

[Ickisrulz]

Yes Pine Baron, scripture edifies scripture. Christ comes again in Revelation with a sword coming out His mouth. The writer of Hebrews tells us the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword....in this context the sword seems to be the Spirit.

Here is why I think the "sword" is an actual sword.

1. When the disciples were sent out by Jesus previously, it was a time of great popularity. The disciples were welcomed into peoples' homes where they received shelter, food and protection. Now things had changed and Jesus would be executed as a criminal. He no longer had the popularity he once did. There were also times of serious persecution coming. Because of this, people would not be as willing to bring the disciples into their homes. Therefore, the disciples would be traveling on their own. This required money, food and a form of protection. The country side held dangers.

2. While Paul spoke of the "Sword of the Spirit" and the author of Hebrews compared the word of God to a sword, this figurative language was used long after these words of Jesus. Jesus never used "sword" to mean the word of God. So there is no logical way the disciples would have concluded Jesus meant the word of God when he said "sword."

3. If we take "moneybag" and "knapsack" (ESV translations) to be literal, why would we single out "sword" and say he must have meant something different?

[DCP]

Matthew 10:34-40 English Standard Version (ESV)

Not Peace, but a Sword
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

[Ickisrulz]

Matthew 10:34-40 English Standard Version (ESV)

Not Peace, but a Sword
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

I am not sure if you posted this in response to what I wrote, but I will provide a comment. In this case there really isn't a way to claim that "sword" is the word of God. He is not meaning a literal sword either. The use of "sword" is in contrast to "peace." Jesus' appearance and message will cause division (often violent) rather than unity.

[DCP]

I am not sure if you posted this in response to what I wrote, but I will provide a comment. In this case there really isn't a way to claim that "sword" is the word of God. He is not meaning a literal sword either. The use of "sword" is in contrast to "peace." Jesus' appearance and message will cause division (often violent) rather than unity.

What is the opposite of PEACE ? WAR? SWORD? What are enemies?

The use of "sword" is in contrast to "peace." yes it is

I think it is a literal SWORD- discord, turmoil, war

[Ickisrulz]

What is the opposite of PEACE ? WAR? SWORD? What are enemies?

The use of "sword" is in contrast to "peace." yes it is

I think it is a literal SWORD- discord, turmoil, war

A literal sword is a big knife made out of metal.

To use the word "sword" to stand for "discord, turmoil and war" is a figurative use.

[popper]

John 18:10
"Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."
If we say this is chronological, then Peter would have a sword with him. Jesus just checking?
Jesus had just stated(not a prediction but advanced facts) that there was immanent danger - destruction of the Temple, etc. Shortly thereafter, the disciples spread out through the lands,per instructions.

[Pine Baron]

Or maybe try this;

2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (ESV)

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

[dverna]

It seems we can interpret this a number of ways.

If those who wrote the Bible were not accurate in documenting this passage, then they are to blame. If Jesus uttered words that confuse even scholars, their meaning is either beyond our comprehension or possibly irrelevant. Maybe Jesus was just frustrated when he said "enough". Frustrated that his disciples had not grasped the meaning...? And if the disciples had not grasped the meaning, what chance do we have at this point?

To me, it seems unlikely that two swords (big knives) would be enough to protect the disciples who would soon scatter in different directions. And if the sword is the word of God, why two of them?

The Bible may not be the perfect work many Christians want to believe it is. And reading meaning into something that is not universally accepted, may make one feel good but fails the litmus test. Better to admit we do not know than make stuff up and hope it fits our perceptions.

[sparky45]

There was a translation error in that text. Jesus actually said to buy a 45 Automatic.

Or, a 458 Socom.

[Ickisrulz]

The Bible may not be the perfect work many Christians want to believe it is.

The idea of limited Bible inerrancy causes more problems than it solves for the Christian. What is in error and what is not? How in the world can anyone decide? The Bible says Jesus rose from the dead. How do you know this particular claim is correct? Just because it says so more than once? Is that the standard we should go by? Or do we just discount things that don't sound right to us?

The passage in question is pretty straightforward despite the difficulty some readers have with it. One of the reasons for this is the notion that Jesus and his disciples were "meek and mild"--meaning passive wimps. This just isn't the case as proven by events recorded in scripture.

[popper]

The writings of the 1st century Church Father Ignatius of Antioch refer to Peter and Paul giving admonitions to the Romans, indicating Peter's presence in Rome Two? Peter is the leader of the converted Jew, Paul the leader of the converted gentiles? Remember Barabbas, the terrorist/zealot - Rome had some 'weapon' controls in place then. Was it in the PLAN for Peter to cut off the ear and Jesus to put it back on? Remember the Roman Gov. 'washed his hands' of the affair, found no guilt in Jesus! Also remember that Luke's writings were not completely first hand, he was to an extent, a documentarian. Yes, we don't know but is it really a 'sticky' point in Christianity?
Don't take stuff out of context and try to make a 'talking' point.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

This reply is to everyone who lean toward the belief that this sword (and two swords) are NOT long Iron knives.

"and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

If the sword isn't a literal sword, what would the Disciples be buying?
Buy the Word?
Buy the Knowledge?
Buy The Spirit?

[popper]

But wait - lets go farther. Mosaic priests were anointed by placing blood on the ear (yes, other ways also). Why would Peter cut off the ear (Often used in Babylon/Syrian times as punishment for perjury) vs attempting to take the head priest's servant's life or other major bodily injury? Did he just miss? IMHO there is a lot going on in the events and conversation. Not just a statement that you need a weapon to protect yourself - so go buy one.

[jmort]

"The idea of limited Bible inerrancy causes more problems than it solves for the Christian. What is in error and what is not? How in the world can anyone decide? The Bible says Jesus rose from the dead. How do you know this particular claim is correct? Just because it says so more than once? Is that the standard we should go by? Or do we just discount things that don't sound right to us? "

Completely agree
To those who want to zero-out parts of the Bible, which pages of your Bible did you tear out and how much is left?

[Blackwater]

Some great and very thoughtful replies here! Thanks for each of them. I honestly don't know the answer to the original question here, but even after all the comments and possibilities are examined, I believe that the original verse in question does indeed refer to a physical, cutting sword. I just don't know our Lord's reasoning, and it's not explained. So I think these comments are a good thing, for whenever Christ doesn't give us a literal reason for His words, I think He intended for us to think about and consider them. I just wish I was smarter, and could figure it all out. As someone has stated recently, it's hard to say "I don't know," but .... I simply don't, and I'm not too proud to admit it. The more time and thought we put into the study and consideration of things like this, the more I truly am captivated by the Word, and all that's in it .... and some of the things that are not specifically defined, as well. Study is a never-ending pursuit, but a worthy one. Whenever we start to think we've got it all figured out, maybe things like this were put in there to keep us humble???? Maybe???? I wish I knew.

[dverna]

Ickisrulz,
Parts of the Bible are "zeroed out" routinely. If there was only one interpretation, why do we have so many Christian sects?

Jesus rising from the dead can be accepted as fact because there are multiple reports of this occurring. It is accepted by every Christian faith and is not open to interpretation. Most of the bible is the same way.

This passage that JonB selected gives us pause.

Works done by men can and do have errors. They may be minor but they will occur. If God had written the Bible, then declaring it perfect is a given, but it was written and translated by men. We do not discount the majority of what is written because there may be a few errors or because we do not understand what is said.

If it was perfect, what are we discussing here? Are some of us just dense?

[Ickisrulz]

Ickisrulz,
Parts of the Bible are "zeroed out" routinely. If there was only one interpretation, why do we have so many Christian sects?

Jesus rising from the dead can be accepted as fact because there are multiple reports of this occurring. It is accepted by every Christian faith and is not open to interpretation. Most of the bible is the same way.

This passage that JonB selected gives us pause.

Works done by men can and do have errors. They may be minor but they will occur. If God had written the Bible, then declaring it perfect is a given, but it was written and translated by men. We do not discount the majority of what is written because there may be a few errors or because we do not understand what is said.

If it was perfect, what are we discussing here? Are some of us just dense?

If any parts are zeroed out as being in error, what is the authority for doing so? That is the major question when we start down the road of saying certain parts of the Bible are in error.

You say that multiple reports of an occurrence proves the record is inspired? Is this one of the tests? It certainly is not the test everyone uses. For example, the Old Testament provides repeated testimony of the fact that God judges and punishes the wicked. Without counting the pages, I'd bet that there are more chapters dealing with the removal of evil people in the OT than the Resurrection of Christ in the NT. There are also plenty of NT passages showing the authors believed God punished the wicked in the OT. Yet, some still reject the idea that God punished the wicked saying this material erroneously reports God's actions.

There is truly only one interpretation of any passage of scripture. That is what the original author intended to convey to the original audience. Individuals serious about Bible study do their best to determine what this message is and then how it applies to us today.

Sure some passages are not fully understood. People disagree on their meaning. Denominations have even been formed as a result of these disagreements. But how does this present a case for errors? Just because I might not understand something, doesn't mean it is in error.

The bottom line for me is that I believe God acts. He acted to create the universe. He acted in the Bible. He acted to provide an infallible report of who he is and what he has done. Man is not perfect, but God who is perfect created a perfect work using his people. Why is that so hard to believe?

Are some people dense? I wouldn't say that. But many people have never been taught the proper approach to studying the Bible and some of these discussions are evidence of that.

[woodbutcher]

Char Gar mentioned mis-translation.Another is supposed to be the
commandment "Thou shalt not kill".Is thought to actually be"Thou shalt not commit murder".Most interesting thread.Thanks for posting.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[Good Cheer]

The king/kingdom of the world gets a head wound and everything gets healed by Jesus.
That's the kind of thing i suspect is "prophetic foreshadowing" (something I mentioned in another thread), the name Malchus meaning counselor or king. How that fits in with Malchus being the slave to Caiaphas (the high priest of the religious establishment) I could only speculate, not going to flavor other prophecy with any assumptions drawn from Malchus getting whacked.

[Pine Baron]

Okay after much thought and some research, I offer this:
An article By James M. Arlandson, titled "A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36" summarized below.
Full article is linked here. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/luke_22_36.htm

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial, and execution were based on false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he was not permitted to stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).

The third and final nonliteral interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation of clarification is supported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As seen in this article on Matt. 10:34, in context he does not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up nonphysically. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of "sword" as nonliteral, in the two parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why would he not shift slightly the meaning of "sword" in 22:36-38?

[Ickisrulz]

Okay after much thought and some research, I offer this:
An article By James M. Arlandson, titled "A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36" summarized below.
Full article is linked here. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/luke_22_36.htm

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial, and execution were based on false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he was not permitted to stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).

The third and final nonliteral interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation of clarification is supported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As seen in this article on Matt. 10:34, in context he does not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up nonphysically. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of "sword" as nonliteral, in the two parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why would he not shift slightly the meaning of "sword" in 22:36-38?

So this guy says Jesus planted evidence to ensure his arrest? Of course we know from the account nothing was needed to arrest and convict Jesus other than his testimony. None of the disciples, the bearers of the swords, were arrested. No mention of weapons was made at either of Jesus' "trails." It just wasn't an issue.

The other objects Jesus said to take with them on their travels were literal, but the sword was not? He intended the disciples to use their money and their food bags, but not their swords?

Let's not ignore the fact that these disciples of Jesus were already carrying swords when this conversation took place. Jesus most certainly knew about it and didn't prevent it.

It looks like this fellow probably just can't accept the idea of self defense or the idea that Jesus would propose such a thing. Therefore, he must explain away the most logically and hermetically sound interpretation. Was the whip Jesus used in the temple figurative of something too?

[Pine Baron]

I'm curious, Ick. Did you read the linked article or just my summary?

[Ickisrulz]

I'm curious, Ick. Did you read the linked article or just my summary?

I read what you wrote and then skimmed the article. Here's his conclusion:

"The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there teach the Apostles nonaggression, so Luke 22:36 does not permit violence. He said to Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Peter and the others heard those words that clarify the use of swords. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword must not be part of the disciples’ new walk with the resurrected Christ, as they preached his message of hope. To read a series on Pacifism and the Sword in the New Testament..."

He is under the belief that Christians should be non-violent pacifists. In all fairness I don't know if his ideas color his interpretation or if his interpretation colors his ideas.

What has only been touched on in this thread is what this passage means for today's Christian. Did Jesus teach that we should defend ourselves against violence or not? If a terrorist bursts into your church and starts shooting people, can you shoot him with your own gun? If a thug grabs one of your kids are you not free to shoot him? Isn't this really what we are looking at here?

Considering what happened to the majority of the Apostles and many of the 1st Century Christians we have to wonder about God's will and martyrdom. Is martyrdom in the New Testament written as history or a prescription for behavior? These people didn't want to die. They fled and hid when they could, but many were overcome by a greater force and murdered.

[rl69]

The Bible may not be the perfect work many Christians want to believe it is. And reading meaning into something that is not universally accepted, may make one feel good but fails the litmus test. Better to admit we do not know than make stuff up and hope it fits our perceptions.

It not the word of God / the bible that is imperfect. It is us, we search the word for answers using our intellect and knowledge,when we should be letting the spirit giving us understanding.

As for as the op,I don't know? Many times the word uses "the sword" as a metaphor for the word of God.in this passage I'm not sure. And frankly I don't care. In God's time he will reveal to me what it means or not?

I don't need the bible to tell me whether or not it's ok to carry I've prayed and have been given understand on that

[Good Cheer]

To piggy back on something once said by Missler, the bible is a communications system set up to get the message through despite interference, jamming, loss of content, incorrect translations, loss of cultural continuity.

[wv109323]

The Greek has several words that were interpreted as "sword". In this instance the word sword might be better interpreted as "hunting knife". Since Peter was a fisherman he needed a knife to clean fish and repair nets. This was more of a tool that was needed as an every day necessity like the money and food. Since there was more than one fisherman in the make up of the 12 apostles there was more than one "knife". The apostles were given the Great Commission to the four corners of the earth meaning they would need to be self sufficient and need the knife as a tool.
This was not a long bladed sword used for fighting/killing. A sword For warfare was usually not edge sharpened but pointed. A fighting sword was meant to be pierced into the vital organs of your opponent . With an edged sword you may severely cut somebody but he would be somewhat active until he bleed out. A pierce into the vital organs put the opponent "down" much quicker. Plus it is much easier to peirce or thrust a sword forward than to swing. Also thrusting your body would be protected by your shield.
So Jesus was instructing the apostles to prepare for a new lifestyle. I still believe in self defense and that countries have the right to defend themselves through armies.
Thus the servants ear was "cut" off it lends to the "knife" instead of sword.
Luke also being a doctor mentions that Jesus restored the ear. An example of humility at a time of crisis.

[wv109323]

I will also add that "the Word is sharper than a two edged sword" was not a fighting sword but a large knife sharpened on both edges. This was used like our butcher knife to divide meat. Two edges meant that the knife could be used twice as long before needing sharpened. Of course the sharper the knife the easier to divide meat.

[Wayne Smith]

I will also add that "the Word is sharper than a two edged sword" was not a fighting sword but a large knife sharpened on both edges. This was used like our butcher knife to divide meat. Two edges meant that the knife could be used twice as long before needing sharpened. Of course the sharper the knife the easier to divide meat.
Except that the Roman gladius was a two edged sword. It was what most at that time would think of when a sword was mentioned. Most of Jerusalem probably saw them at least once a week, maybe more often.

[MT Gianni]

Jesus said to buy a sword meaning :
1] Times are about to get tougher and I will not be here to protect you.
2] Two is enough, don't "go overboard" with preps. If the goal is to be in Heaven with Him, then death is not to be feared or dreaded. Preach the Gospel and declare Good Tidings but don't expect life to be easy. If you think it was, search out Pauls' life.

[JWFilips]

NAKED; but armed well! Word of my LORD!
Great post!

[Cold Trigger Finger]

"It is enough" possibly means "I have nothing more to say about the matter." Two swords was not enough for 11 guys going in different directions, so I don't think Jesus meant two swords were enough.

The disciples were a lot like many of today's preppers. Jesus told them (i.e., each of them) to take money (purse), food (bag) and a sword on their future travels and they fixated upon the weapon.

The sword was for defense against bandits that they might encounter on the roads. Money is necessary while traveling to buy things and food is also needed.

Things were going to be different for the disciples after Jesus departure and the instructions changed.

Edit: I have heard people claim the "sword" should be taken figuratively (God's word). But this would demand that everything else Jesus listed should be taken figuratively also. There's not justification for this other than some people do not like weapons.


Excellent post. Spot on !

[Blackwater]

I'm not sure about the answer to the OP's question, and I'm comfortable with that. I seem to do better and fail less when I'm pondering questions like this. But I DO know that He also said, "A strong man armed keepeth his house in good order." So it seems to me that Christ acknowledged the simple necessities of this world, so full of evil, and one of those things is the simple dangers posed by "outlaws" and those who'd abuse us heavily. And since "Thou shalt not kill" is more specifically translated, or at least by those I have come to trust most with their translations, as "Thou shalt not murder," which is a whole 'nother connotation in the instruction!

I've actually become glad for questions like this that I have no real answer or opinion on. They keep me studying and thinking and considering, and that keeps me out of trouble!

[Hogtamer]

I just read a passage this morning bearing on this. You know the story of the young shepherd David going out to met the 9'9" Goliath. David killed The Philistine with a good throw from his sling right? Actually he knocked him out with the stone, and the giant did a face plant. Then David took Goliath's own sword, killed him and lopped his head. Sorta made a mockery of the mighty weapons of war. Earlier, at their initial confrontation David said " the LORD does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD's, and He will give you into our hands." Read this in I Samuel 17. I recalled a story from Zechariah (4:6) that goes, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts. So it seems that the sword is an incidental artifact in a battle the Lord has joined. My part is to be prepared but make sure I'm on His side in a conflict.

[Cold Trigger Finger]

Great point. Hogtamer. And my view also. I don't want to shoot anything that The Lord doesn't want me to . And rely on The leading of The Holy Spirit ! I view a firearm in many ways like any other tool I have . Hard for me to stay warm in the winter without a chainsaw and an ax or splitting maul. Hard hats have saved my life or health at least 5 times. Can't build a home without a framing hammer , saw , and level.
However, I have been in enough life threatening problems where I needed a good gun, and had one , but still the positive outcome was From The Lord.
I trust my trusted firearms to be reliable and suited for their designed job. But trust God for keeping me and mine safe.

[claude]

While there may be some ambiguity in whether the stone sinking into the forehead caused the death of Goliath or the parting of the head from the body caused his demise, the take away I get is that The LORD will indeed deliver your enemies into your hand when it is His will. The "trick" I suppose, is to be confident enough in our understanding to know when it is necessary to do so.

I pray I am never faced with that particular dilemma, and for healing for those who have.

1Sa 17:49-51 KJV And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. (50) So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. (51) Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

[nicky4968]

Without posting quotes, it has always been my understanding that it was prophesied that the Messiah would be betrayed and taken in the company of thieves and bandits.
He knew the time had come for his arrest.
He asked if the Disciples had any bags.
They told Him yes.
He asked if they had any swords.
They told Him no.
He instructed them to get swords.
They reported they had two.
He told them two swords were enough.
He was dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

What I can’t get my head around is the adventure of the fig tree.

[Ickisrulz]

Without posting quotes, it has always been my understanding that it was prophesied that the Messiah would be betrayed and taken in the company of thieves and bandits.
He knew the time had come for his arrest.
He asked if the Disciples had any bags.
They told Him yes.
He asked if they had any swords.
They told Him no.
He instructed them to get swords.
They reported they had two.
He told them two swords were enough.
He was dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

What I can’t get my head around is the adventure of the fig tree.

The cursing of the fig tree was one of two miracles that Jesus did that were destructive (the other being the herd of swine). The fig tree was symbolic of Israel which continuously failed to bear fruit.

[MT Gianni]

I believe He was implying that for the next few days or longer it would be tough to be a man with a Galilean accent. As we know sometimes it is enough to print a weapon to avoid confrontation, sometimes it needs to be drawn and sometimes it needs to be used. I feel the Savior was telling his chosen Twelve not to be wimps. I am not sure if that is a command for all or just those men.

[Thumbcocker]

Jesus and the disciples were living in an area under roman occupation. Roman rule was harsh and they valued order a lot. Many Jews felt that the temple establishment was in bed with the Romans. The high priest prayed on behalf of the emperor. All other Roman subjects prayed to the emperor as a deity. The temple priests were walking a fine line trying to placate the Romans and their fellow Jews. Jesus was planning something big in Jerusalem. His entry into the city mocked a Roman triumphal parade with him riding on a donkey. It was a huge hit with the crowd. His challenged to the money changers caused a major disturbance and he was almost arrested but was protected by the crowd.

Also I am pretty sure that there were more folks from the Jesus movement in Jerusalem during Passover. One gospel (forgive me I am not very good at chapter and verse) mentions 72 others being summoned by the 12. The three years of Jesus' ministry follow a pattern of a revolution. A small carefully selected group as the inner circle who are carefully instructed. Taking your case to the people and getting a following and finally the big event. The area Jesus was traveling and preaching in was dirt poor, heavily taxed, (the Romans expected you to pay for the benefit of their civilization) and had a history of unrest.

I tend to think that Jesus wanted a showdown with the priesthood. Flaunting the law in the temple area would bring on a trial on religious charges but not on Roman charges. Since Rome had the exclusive right to impose capital punishment his trial would have been at a religious court. Jesus was a powerful orator and with Jerusalem full of poor rural Jews he could have used the trial to bring his grievances to the common people and force a change. I think the temple elite made a deal with the Romans to get Jesus tried on sedition charges ( capital punishment) and hopefully cut the head off the rebellion.

It has always bothered me that the rest of the disciples were not hunted by the Romans to the ends of the earth. Roman rule tolerated no dissent and close associates of a person plotting against Roman rule would have been targets of reprisal. I think this was more of the backroom deal.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

In short I think Jesus had at least some armed disciples as bodyguards.

[JBinMN]

Jesus and the disciples were living in an area under roman occupation. Roman rule was harsh and they valued order a lot. Many Jews felt that the temple establishment was in bed with the Romans. The high priest prayed on behalf of the emperor. All other Roman subjects prayed to the emperor as a deity. The temple priests were walking a fine line trying to placate the Romans and their fellow Jews. Jesus was planning something big in Jerusalem. His entry into the city mocked a Roman triumphal parade with him riding on a donkey. It was a huge hit with the crowd. His challenged to the money changers caused a major disturbance and he was almost arrested but was protected by the crowd.

Also I am pretty sure that there were more folks from the Jesus movement in Jerusalem during Passover. One gospel (forgive me I am not very good at chapter and verse) mentions 72 others being summoned by the 12. The three years of Jesus' ministry follow a pattern of a revolution. A small carefully selected group as the inner circle who are carefully instructed. Taking your case to the people and getting a following and finally the big event. The area Jesus was traveling and preaching in was dirt poor, heavily taxed, (the Romans expected you to pay for the benefit of their civilization) and had a history of unrest.

I tend to think that Jesus wanted a showdown with the priesthood. Flaunting the law in the temple area would bring on a trial on religious charges but not on Roman charges. Since Rome had the exclusive right to impose capital punishment his trial would have been at a religious court. Jesus was a powerful orator and with Jerusalem full of poor rural Jews he could have used the trial to bring his grievances to the common people and force a change. I think the temple elite made a deal with the Romans to get Jesus tried on sedition charges ( capital punishment) and hopefully cut the head off the rebellion.

It has always bothered me that the rest of the disciples were not hunted by the Romans to the ends of the earth. Roman rule tolerated no dissent and close associates of a person plotting against Roman rule would have been targets of reprisal. I think this was more of the backroom deal.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

In short I think Jesus had at least some armed disciples as bodyguards.

Interesting! & Thanks! for taking the time to type it out & share it.
:)

[Bigslug]

This reply is to everyone who lean toward the belief that this sword (and two swords) are NOT long Iron knives.

"and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

If the sword isn't a literal sword, what would the Disciples be buying?
Buy the Word?
Buy the Knowledge?
Buy The Spirit?

I tend to believe we have a winner here.

The Old Man and the Sea has been picked apart by every two-bit high school English teacher under the sun, and been set forth by them as a parable for just about every worldly condition you can think of. . .when it's entirely possible that Hemingway was just telling the story of an old guy slugging it out with a monster fish.

We've all heard it said that you can use statistics to "prove" anything you want, and much the same can be said of figurative interpretations. If the newspaper says "Bob was killed when hit by a truck being driven by Joe", what it most likely means is that Bob is in the morgue with the imprint of Joe's hood ornament stamped on his ***. It probably does NOT mean that Joe said something that was so surprising to Bob, that Bob was rendered senseless, as if fatally hit by a truck. It probably does NOT mean that Joe is a tax collector who places such a financial burden on Bob that he was rendered as helpless as a man fatally hit by a truck. It probably does NOT mean that Bob is some kind of criminal and that Joe is serving as the swift hand of justice providing a cautionary example to society by smiting the evil-doer with the surety of a speeding F250. . .yet such are the reaches that people make because the plain version is incompatible with the way they want to see things. Yes, such figurative finagles are sometimes helpful in getting a point across - but there's a time to draw a line. Go too far down that road of saying "but what it REALLY means is. . .", you'll have the B.S. flag hoisted against you more often than not.

If I chose to believe in God, I would have to conclude that he created the world as a Darwinian distillery in which most things are trying to roll over most other things to advance their own interests - may the best set of traits ultimately win. In that un-warm and un-fuzzy place, it seems perfectly reasonable for an earthbound incarnation of God (or just the thoughtful leader of any group making their way) to tell his favorite folks that they'd better think about packing heat if they want to preserve that which is near and dear. If he tells them a certain level of heat (two swords) is sufficient for the moment, it reflects an understanding that a tiny band isn't going to survive against the world on force alone, and that some guile and persuasion will be required.

"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone" - Al Capone got it; it would seem Jesus did too.

[Char-Gar]

You guys are twisting yourselves into human pretzels trying to shoe horn the passage into a pre-existing theory about Jesus. It just could be that Jesus is bigger than any one person's or group's theology. I just could be that this is one we will have to ask Jesus what he meant when the day comes.

Somebody once asked Billy Graham if he was bothered some things he didn't understand in Scripture. Graham's response was; " It is the things I do understand in the Bible that bother me, not the things I don't understand.".

There are some folks than can not live with Biblical ambiguities and simply must make everything fit into a box. I am not one of those folks, I can live with ambiguity of all kinds.

[popper]

The cursing of the fig tree As Jesus stated - (paraphrase) I am The Son of God - you didn't provide for Me when I desired. It was NOT the season for fig fruit! As is stated, the rocks and hills shall call My name even if no others will. Yes, I've heard the other version.
As for the swords, He is about to leave the earth and they are on their own and will face evil doers so need to protect themselves (like Paul). The Romans (at this time) did not pursue as Jesus was NOT a threat to them as he was to the Jewish elite. Paul ran into the same problem in cities he visited.

[Ickisrulz]

The cursing of the fig tree As Jesus stated - (paraphrase) I am The Son of God - you didn't provide for Me when I desired. It was NOT the season for fig fruit! As is stated, the rocks and hills shall call My name even if no others will. Yes, I've heard the other version.


I have never seen a fig tree in my life so I can only go by what I have read. A fig tree that had leaves on it should have had fruit. This tree had done something unusual, developed leaves early in the season without developing fruit. The tree was suggesting something about itself that was not true. If you take the tree to be symbolic of Israel, you can see a comparison. Israel had an outward appearance of being in proper relationship with God, but didn't produce actions that were expected. Mark 11:22 seems to suggest that Israel's problem was her lack of faith.

[Sailormilan2]

I was always taught that the Christ of the New Testament was the God of the Old Testament.
If that is so, then the idea that carrying and using a sword to defend oneself is against Christ's ideology may be ignoring what He allowed in the Old Testament.
In 1 Sam. 30 we have the story of David's wives being taken captive, and the people being upset with David for allowing it to happen. So David turns to the "Lord" and asked what he should do. The "Lord" (Jehovah) told him to go get them. David and his men did so and killed every one of them.
Was that wrong? Overkill? No where is there any criticism that what David and his men did was wrong.
Too often people try to ignore what happened in the OT, rather than using it with the NT to understand things better.
That is a much different situation than what faced Christ in the Garden, when Peter drew his sword. Christ and His disciples were facing probably close to 1000 armed soldiers, and it would have been suicidal to resist. The officer in charge was a "chiliarchos" (John 18:12), and in the Roman army a "chilarchos" was a Captain in charge of 1000 men. Resistance would have been futile and was not part of Christ's plan.

[popper]

Fig is a late summer crop that produces on new growth. Evidently ancient figs were pollinated by wasps, not bees. One of the early food fruit crops in the Med.
"12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”". Explains it all. I added the bold.

[Ickisrulz]

Fig is a late summer crop that produces on new growth. Evidently ancient figs were pollinated by wasps, not bees. One of the early food fruit crops in the Med.
"12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”". Explains it all. I added the bold.

I don't see where anything was explained above.

Even though it was not the season for fruit, Jesus expected that there would be something to eat as indicated by the leaves. The tree was suggesting something to Jesus that was not true. I am giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt here, having faith he knew he could expect something to eat from a tree with leaves on it. In other words, I don't think he was mistaken about his expectations.

[popper]

When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
Do you really think that the Son of God, who could cause "May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” - not to know when figs were in season? If rocks can call out the name of Jesus, a fig tree should know also. Please do not deny the power and authority of my God.
Edit: that may have sounded harsh/wrong, sorry.
The verse is not in first tense, nor allegorical tense, so I'd have to say it is as an observance by others. Not a preaching/teaching, nor a self 'proclamation', an observed event. I've heard the allegorical theology, as referencing the Jewish nation and it's inability to follow Gods commands, definitely does apply, however IMHO it is more about Authority.

[Ickisrulz]

When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
Do you really think that the Son of God, who could cause "May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” - not to know when figs were in season? If rocks can call out the name of Jesus, a fig tree should know also. Please do not deny the power and authority of my God.
Edit: that may have sounded harsh/wrong, sorry.
The verse is not in first tense, nor allegorical tense, so I'd have to say it is as an observance by others. Not a preaching/teaching, nor a self 'proclamation', an observed event. I've heard the allegorical theology, as referencing the Jewish nation and it's inability to follow Gods commands, definitely does apply, however IMHO it is more about Authority.

So you are saying this event was primarily to show Jesus' authority? That just doesn't make sense to me.

More than one scholarly source asserts that there should have been some fruit on the tree (as indicated by the leaves) even though it was not full blow fig season. To think any differently suggests Jesus was being a bit unreasonable.

This begs the question, "Was Jesus ever mistaken?" I think we see he was on a couple occasions (to be wrong is not a sin), but I don't think this was one of them.

[popper]

And the fig tree withered at once To consider it any more than a demonstration of His authority (like walking on water, healing, calming the sea) brings up many ramifications that you need to answer. Is He saying Israel is forever cut off from God? If so, then 1) why any references to (new) Jerusalem? 2) Crusades, Inquisition, holocaust are just political battles, not spiritual. 3) Israel has (and Islam) no spiritual claim on the land. 4) It is the END of the covenant between God and the Jews. I can't claim to be right, just stating now you have lots of rabbit holes to investigate. Many historical events to examine if one follows some of the seminary taught paths.
Not to beat a dead horse, but.
Lets consider another, the rich young ruler. Wants to join Jesus's group. You're the leader of a mission trip to Peru & Ecuador. Donald Trump a wants to join your group. He'll provide chopper & limos for trans. and pay the bills. Of course he'll bring the S.S., assistants, liaison, etc. You understand you are now just part of his entourage. What do you tell him? Your group would love to travel 'in style'. Do you try to explain to him/them that it 'won't work'? What do you use as a teaching moment to your followers? Just 'make something up' - inject a word of wisdom/truth?
Why do I add this? After Jesus cursed the fig tree (and it died forever!!), there was a 'teaching moment'. What lesson to be learned ( I just used Trump's position as an example ) ? Yes, somebody will bring up this teaching (allegorical?) moment from scripture.

[Ickisrulz]

And the fig tree withered at once To consider it any more than a demonstration of His authority (like walking on water, healing, calming the sea) brings up many ramifications that you need to answer. Is He saying Israel is forever cut off from God? If so, then 1) why any references to (new) Jerusalem? 2) Crusades, Inquisition, holocaust are just political battles, not spiritual. 3) Israel has (and Islam) no spiritual claim on the land. 4) It is the END of the covenant between God and the Jews. I can't claim to be right, just stating now you have lots of rabbit holes to investigate. Many historical events to examine if one follows some of the seminary taught paths.
Not to beat a dead horse, but.
Lets consider another, the rich young ruler. Wants to join Jesus's group. You're the leader of a mission trip to Peru & Ecuador. Donald Trump a wants to join your group. He'll provide chopper & limos for trans. and pay the bills. Of course he'll bring the S.S., assistants, liaison, etc. You understand you are now just part of his entourage. What do you tell him? Your group would love to travel 'in style'. Do you try to explain to him/them that it 'won't work'? What do you use as a teaching moment to your followers? Just 'make something up' - inject a word of wisdom/truth?
Why do I add this? After Jesus cursed the fig tree (and it died forever!!), there was a 'teaching moment'. What lesson to be learned ( I just used Trump's position as an example ) ? Yes, somebody will bring up this teaching (allegorical?) moment from scripture.

As I understand stuff, the death and resurrection of Jesus brought the end of the Old Covenant. Israel (as a unit) remained outside the New Covenant due to her rejection of the Messiah. Israel will remain outside until she realizes Jesus is the Christ and accepts what God accomplished through him. The Church has taken Israel's place as the people of covenant privilege, i.e., favored by God and charged with sharing God's revelations with the world.

With this in mind, it is logical to see the cursed fig tree standing for Israel. Israel outwardly seemed to be in proper relationship with God through temple worship and the sacred teachings thus having something to offer the world. But in reality she had continually rejected God's offers which culminated in the murder of the Messiah. At this point she was cut off.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

[UKShootist]

Is 'living by the sword' suggesting s professional sword user such as a soldier or assassin? Or does it mean anyone who uses a sword? I would suspect the former perhaps?

[popper]

As I understand stuff, the death and resurrection of Jesus brought the end of the Old Covenant. Israel (as a unit) remained outside the New Covenant due to her rejection of the Messiah. Israel will remain outside until she realizes Jesus is the Christ and accepts what God accomplished through him. The Church has taken Israel's place as the people of covenant privilege, i.e., favored by God and charged with sharing God's revelations with the world. I agree. The point I am trying to make is the Jesus used the fig tree event as an example, else if it were an exact 'replica', until she realizes Jesus is the Christ can't be true. The tree died permanently, no chance of 're-birth'. Like I previously stated about the 2 swords, if none were present, the ear would not get cut off, Jesus couldn't put it back on and show the Jews (by an event) his Divinity. We cannot say that this was not an orchestrated event.

[docmagnum357]

I have studied this intently. " It is enough" means that is enough talk about this and it was dismissive, like I would say to my wife, " That's enough of that." The sword and bag and scrip were literal, because when he had sent them out before they didn't even carry food. People along the at fed them and met their needs. Christ was telling them that their evangelism would no longer be under direct miraclulous provision, much like the mana being cut off from the Hebrews. God still cares, and he still provides and protects, but we have to do our part as well now. Miracales haven't ceased. They are more for a sign to the unbeliever now. Romans 13 makes it pretty clear we are not to fight the established government. God tells us several places in the bible that he sets up kings. "Resist" is different. Paul was lowered over the wall in a basket to hide from the san hedren. What about outlaws, bandits, thugs, etc.? We almost are obliged to deal harshly with them, even to killing them if they are murderers or kidnappers, etc. House breakers were under no protection from deadly force. So, submit to established authority, deal harshly with outlaws, be prepared for hard times, earn and save some money. But still depend on God. Make sense?

[Ickisrulz]

I agree. The point I am trying to make is the Jesus used the fig tree event as an example, else if it were an exact 'replica', until she realizes Jesus is the Christ can't be true. The tree died permanently, no chance of 're-birth'. Like I previously stated about the 2 swords, if none were present, the ear would not get cut off, Jesus couldn't put it back on and show the Jews (by an event) his Divinity. We cannot say that this was not an orchestrated event.

It is my understanding that parables and allegories in the Bible should not be pressed too far. Many times words are used in the Bible that we think of as concrete, but were not at the time the original texts were written or spoken. Lengths of time often fall into this category.

But in this case, that generation of Israel (First Century) never produced fruit for the kingdom of God again. In the last 2 thousand years, what has Israel done to contribute to God's mission? The answer is nothing since her official stance is that Jesus is not the Messiah. Even if Israel were to have a nationwide revelation that Jesus is the Christ, she would join the Church. Israel's unique contribution as a "blessing to the whole world" ended around 30AD. The Church has taken this position.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I always thought there was something fishy going on in Gethsemane. It was a garden, not the Winter Palace or Tienanmen Square of Jerusalem. We can debate whether words are to be taken literally, but if a cohort is, it is about 500 men. That is a lot to find together, in a less than vital part of a city where the Romans were present "in aid of the civil power". It seems unlikely that the Romans actually liked the Herods, any more than America liked the Somozas, Batistas and Diems it has found expedient to support. I don't suppose it meant much to them if some cult priest chose to let his ear fall off. Pontius Pilate is now known to have been a prefect, still a minor provincial governor but military rather than the basically revenue-managing and civilian procurator.

So why "put up his sword in its sheath" and walk off with his hardware about him (swords with sheaths tend to be on the literal side), rather than just "stop it, you fool" or drop it and walk off quietly like Michael Corleone? Jesus had a far better claim to kingship, by blood, than the highly unpopular Herods. It doesn't seem impossible that the Romans intended the Herods to persecute Jesus in a proper religious trial, and lose - until Pilate a bad colonial governor if ever there was, lost his nerve in the face of crowd pressure.

[popper]

something fishy going on in Gethsemane
Definitely! After peter cut off the ear, why did the Roman troops not attack (him)?. Why did that event even happen? if Jesus had not asked 'do you have a sword?", would it have happened?.
When you read scripture, read it like you were there. Just a collection of coincidences?
If you think that, consider what the results would be if Jesus body had just been tossed on the dung heap with the rest of the bodies. No unused tomb to be sealed, no armed guards to watch over it, no miraculous moving of the stone, etc.
Is what happens in your life just coincidence or is there really a PLAN!.

[Ickisrulz]

Definitely! After peter cut off the ear, why did the Roman troops not attack (him)?.

My guess is because of Jesus' demonstration of power. When he identified himself "they (soldiers and others) drew back and fell to the ground." Then there was the healing of the guy's ear. When Jesus told the arrest party to "let these men (disciples) go" they probably figured they needed to obey.

[popper]

IIRC, one was chased and ended up without any clothes. There is also no other mention of the apostles or disciples using (or needing) a sword in the rest of scripture. Did they have, carry utility knives - probably.

[docmagnum357]

Resurrecting an old. dead thread. If born again believers aren't law and order folks, then who is? Capital punishment goes all the way back to the time when noah left the ark.
no government there. But God told them If man sheds man's blood, his blood SHALL be shed by man. Lethal self defense and capital punishment are God ordained. If you really study scripture, Rape, murder, kidnapping, witchcraft... several other sins or transgressions are punishable by death. As our culture turns away from the Word or God to their won understanding we are getting more and more hesitant to execute criminals for all manner of things God calls abominations.

If a Bible believer and student of the word can't understand ( rightly divide) the scripture despite the culture he lives in being against it he is no better off than a man who can't read. Truthfully, if he understands and does not do, then he is much worse off. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. To quote an old preacher, " The bible isn't hard to understand, it is just hard to believe" .HAve to agree with him. It is hard to believe we should sell our outer garment, the cloak was a lot like a tent, to buy a defensive weapon. But God commanded murderers be put to death. Hard to believe we should all " Seek ye first the kingdom of God". Lot easier to let the preacher do the paying and evangelizing and visiting the sick, easier to let the missionary " Go ye therefore into all the world, Preach the Gospel...". All I would add is that it is harder still to obey. Christ demands it ALL. You have to take up YOUR cross and follow him. As for me, I am still working on it.

[Shiloh]

It could mean exactly what is says..i.e. Guys, things are at a critical stage and you need to survive it.

Jesus knew that all the power structure of his time were lining up to get him. He knew his time was running out and his plan for the survival of his ministry and meaning was the band of Apostles. They were plan A and there was no plan B. If they were picked off, everything was for naught. They had to survive.

Jesus chose not to defend himself by force, but he never said his followers should not as well. The use of self defense by Christians is much debated with some groups being willing to be passive while being slaughtered. There are others, like myself, that will resist evil with my last breath. I don't carry a sword, but I do carry a Smith and Wesson 38.

Sometimes we over think things.

This makes perfect sense.

Shiloh