RotoMetals2Titan ReloadingGraf & SonsMidSouth Shooters Supply
Inline FabricationStainLess Steel MediaADvertise hereLee Precision

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Jesus says, buy a sword?

  1. #21
    Boolit Master


    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    2,385
    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.
    Don Verna

    NRA Endowment Member

  2. #22
    Boolit Master


    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SE, KS
    Posts
    1,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Char-Gar View Post
    There was a translation error in that text. Jesus actually said to buy a 45 Automatic.
    Or, a 458 Socom.

  3. #23
    Boolit Master

    Ickisrulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Shawnee, OK
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by dverna View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Boolit Master popper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,993
    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.
    Whatever!

  5. #25
    Moderator



    JonB_in_Glencoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    9,367
    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?

  6. #26
    Boolit Master popper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,993
    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.
    Whatever!

  7. #27
    Boolit Master



    jmort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Color Me Gone
    Posts
    6,800
    "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?
    "Had his shooting been as good as his running, he might have given a better account of himself."
    James. C. Henderson

  8. #28
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,906
    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.

  9. #29
    Boolit Master


    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    2,385
    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?
    Don Verna

    NRA Endowment Member

  10. #30
    Boolit Master

    Ickisrulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Shawnee, OK
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by dverna View Post
    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.

  11. #31
    Boolit Master woodbutcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LaFollette Tn
    Posts
    823
    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
    People never lie so much as after a hunt,during a war,or before an election.
    Otto von Bismarck

  12. #32
    Boolit Master Good Cheer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    the Ark
    Posts
    2,666
    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.

  13. #33
    Boolit Master Pine Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    1,725
    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/Autho...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?
    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

  14. #34
    Boolit Master

    Ickisrulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Shawnee, OK
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Pine Baron View Post
    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/Autho...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?

  15. #35
    Boolit Master Pine Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    1,725
    I'm curious, Ick. Did you read the linked article or just my summary?
    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

  16. #36
    Boolit Master

    Ickisrulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Shawnee, OK
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Pine Baron View Post
    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.

  17. #37
    Boolit Master
    rl69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brookeland Texas
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by dverna View Post



    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
    Last edited by rl69; 06-30-2017 at 05:00 PM.
    when the dust settles and the smoke clears all that matters is I hear the words " well done my good and faithfully servant "

    <(*)(()><

  18. #38
    Boolit Master Good Cheer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    the Ark
    Posts
    2,666
    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.

  19. #39
    Boolit Master


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lenore, WV
    Posts
    1,889
    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.

  20. #40
    Boolit Master


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lenore, WV
    Posts
    1,889
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check