But that’s just it – your quotes do not address ANY of the questions that I have asked. They say … This furnishes the meaning of his answer to their simplicity in 38: ‘It is enough’. He does not mean that two swords are enough for their protection, but, seeing that they have not understood him, he says with a smile, 'That would be enough for what I meant’. Some think, less probably, that he answers abruptly to change the subject which they have misunderstood: ‘Enough of that’. … but why would Jesus not explain to them what He really meant when He was entrusting them to carry His message out to the rest of the world? Why does scripture say that Jesus explained everything to them when in this case he apparently didn’t? What does it mean to sell your garment in order to buy a sword? Why didn’t the author of this book provide the correct meaning of this passage when the gospel was being written down and after the Holy Spirit had open their minds to the true meaning? Why is this the only exception in all of the gospels where a symbolic meaning is not explained? Etc?
All of these points are not addressed and all of these points disappear if we take the position that Jesus was referring to actually swords. So, what conclusions can we draw from that?
Below are writings and opinions of one of the Doctors of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom. Please, read his writings and tell me what you think he is saying.
**Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii. **
**CHRYS. Now as one who teaches to swim, at first indeed placing his hands under his pupils, carefully supports them, but afterward frequently withdrawing his hand, bids them help themselves, nay even lets them sink a little; so likewise did Christ deal with His disciples. At the beginning truly He was present to them, giving them most richly abundance of all things; as it follows, And they said to them, Nothing.
But when it was necessary for them to show their own strength, He withdrew from them for a little His grace, bidding them do something of themselves; as it follows, But now he that has a purse, that is, wherein to carry money, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, that is, to carry provisions in. And truly when they had neither shoes, nor girdle, nor staff, nor money, they never suffered the want of any thing. But when He allowed them purse and scrip, they seem to suffer hunger, and thirst, and nakedness. As if He said to them, Hitherto all things have been most richly supplied to you, but now I would have you also experience poverty, therefore I hold you no longer to the former rule, but I command you to get purse and scrip. Now God might even to the end have kept them in plenty, but for many reasons He was unwilling to do so. First that they might impute nothing to themselves, but acknowledge that every thing flowed from God; secondly, that they might learn moderation; thirdly, that they might not think too highly of themselves. For this cause while He permitted them to fall into many unlooked for evils, He relaxed the rigor of the former law, lest it should become grievous and intolerable.**
CHRYS. What is this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say to you, that this that is written must, be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors.
CHRYS. And in truth, if He wished them to use human aid, not a hundred swords would have sufficed; but if He willed not the assistance of man, even two are superfluous.
I cannot answer your questions myself. I am not trying to read anything into the scriptures or interpretations from the Saints and Church Doctors to support an opinion.
It appears from what I’ve read, that the message was given as a warning of the impending attack. Let’s say, all eleven disciples bought swords. What would eleven swords be against the multitudes that were going to besiege the Lord? Two seemed to be enough. Only one was used and the Lord commanded Peter to sheath that sword and told him, “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” You’ve asked many questions of what example or symbolism the Lord was trying to get across. Tell me what example or symbolism was the Lord trying to impress with those words, “…those who live by the sword will die by the sword?” Did he say two swords were enough so he could finish the “parable” by telling Peter to sheath his sword, thus making him understand?
Maybe someone else can join in and help us answer all these questions?
