Peter's Sword

[shaka]

I am wondering what are some therories on why Peter had a sword? Is there any web sites that discuss this or more probably any books? I am very curious.

Shaka

 

[scriabin]

A Bible footnote I once read said that it was just a normal, not uncommon practice for a man to carry a sword for protection in those days.

I don’t know if it has a deeper meaning than that.

 

[deb1]

Didn’t they live in dangerous times back then? In one of Jesus’ parables a man is beaten, robbed and left on the side of the road to die. I doubt that he would have used a story that his listeners couldn’t relate to, so this must have been a possible happening. Also, I believe that the concept of a police force is a more modern invention. They had laws and soldiers of course, but I believe that you were expected to protect your own self.

 

[WHCSC]

In The Passion of The Christ didn’t Peter take one of the soldier’s swords?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Shaka, welcome to the forums!

You might want to check out Luke 22:36-38 too

He said to them, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.” Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”

This takes place right before the arrest of Jesus.

VC

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Shaka, In Luke 22, Jesus tells the disciples to buy swords for self protection, later Peter uses one of those swords at Jesus’s arrest. Later, a pope claims that the papacy owns one of the swords and the king owns the other sword.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=two+swords+pope+king

Gregory VII rendered much subsequent tinkering with the church-state line to be just that – mere tinkering by comparison. He not only excommunicated King Henry IV at the Lenten Synod of 1076 (the result of a long-brewing confrontation between the two), but took the additional step of deposing him. He obliterated the line between church and state, and was soundly and widely criticized for his glaring innovation and revolutionary use of papal authority.

Previously, Pope Gelasius I (492-496) had commented on the relationship between the church and the empire: “[T]here are two powers by which chiefly this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the priesthood and the authority of kings. And of these the authority of the priests is so much the weightier, as they must render before the tribunal of an account even for the kings of men.” While this might at first seem to support the position of Gregory VII, it was widely believed that the Gelasian “two swords” theory maintained that these two powers – political and religious – should not be held by the same person.

This battle culminated in the eleventh century, as the papacy attempted to wrest control away from the king and other secular rulers who were practicing Lay Investiture. That is, they had begun to name bishops, who were thereby invested with secular and sacred authority. The Investiture Controversy – the title often given to the hubbub surrounding the late eleventh-century reform movement that sought to rectify this practice, and which reached its peak during the pontificate of Gregory VII – was settled in 1122 with the Concordat of Worms. The Concordat stated that the king had the right to invest bishops with authority in the secular realm, while the church would endow bishops with the signs of sacred authority. The separation of the two swords was regarded as the most palatable compromise, as each side realized that the chaos following Gregory’s political use of papal authority was detrimental to all.

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14946.htm

christianethicstoday.com/Issue/055/The%20Two%20Swords%20of%20Pope%20Benedict%20XVI%20By%20Ken%20A.%20Grant_055_19_.htm

Luke 22:36-38
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied

newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm

 

[Angainor]

shaka:

I am wondering what are some therories on why Peter had a sword?

Is there a particular reason you are asking? It seems fairly obvious that he had it for self-defense.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Shaka,

Jesus gave St. Peter His own sword. The sword of Christ’s mouth. The sword of Christ’s mouth is the power to “hold sins bound” in heaven and on earth. One cannot go to heaven when Jesus binds one to sin in heaven and on earth. Therefore it is a very deadly sword. Peter still possesses this sword today and it is carried by Pope Benedict XVI.

Please visit Throwing Stones

**NAB MAT 16:13 **

Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

**NAB REV 1:16 **

A sharp, two-edged sword came out of his mouth, and his face shone like the sun at its brightest. When I caught sight of him I fell down at his feet as though dead, he touched me with his right hand and said: “There is nothing to fear. I am the First and the Last and the One who lives. Once I was dead but now I live-- forever and ever. I hold the keys of death and the nether world.”

NAB ISA 11:4

The Rule of Immanuel

He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.​

**NAB JOH 20:20 **

At the sight of the Lord the disciples rejoiced. “Peace be with you,” he said again. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Then he breathed on them and said: “Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.” NAB MAT 5:22

What I say to you is: everyone who grows angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; any man who uses abusive language toward his brother shall be** answerable to the Sanhedrin,** and if he holds him in contempt he risks the fires of Gehenna. **NAB MAT 18:17 **

“If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”

 

[Angainor]

deb1:

Didn’t they live in dangerous times back then?

Yes, and they hadn’t invented bulletproof pope-mobiles yet.

Seriously, all times can be dangerous. Some form of personal protection makes sense.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

But, having a nuke in your basement is going a bit too farrr.

 

[love4mary]

But then why did Jesus rebuke Peter by telling him that “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”?

 

[Isidore_AK]

love4mary:

But then why did Jesus rebuke Peter by telling him that “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”?

Perhaps because he was outnumbered and outgunned…err…outsworded at the time…?

 

[tjmiller]

If we translate Jesus’ statement to Peter in the Upper Room as “It is enough”, when Peter shows the two swords, then it does seem to conflict with the Lord’s admonition to Peter in the Garden to put the sword away, and that all who live by the sword shall perish thereby.

However, in the original Greek, Jesus first statement can be rendered as “Enough!” As in “*Enough already! That’s enough!” * In other words, he disapproves of Peter’s armature, first in the Upper Room, and then again at the Arrest in Gethsemane. (Impetuous, headstrong Peter, as we might expect, has ignored the first admonition.)

 

[trogiah]

love4mary:

But then why did Jesus rebuke Peter by telling him that “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”?

Because Jesus never intended that the kingom of God he was teaching about was something that should be brought about or defended by some type of physical force. God’s kingdom will never fall. Any kingdom that requires force to defend it will someday fall.

peace

-Jim

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

love4mary:

But then why did Jesus rebuke Peter by telling him that “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”?

Peter was not acting in self defense, he was acting in haste.

Exodus 22:2
"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

Basically, Exodus 22 puts the use of weapons in propper context which is defending life, family, self and property.

In the garden legal authorities were there to make an arrest. Peter in haste cut off the ear of a man. Jesus healed the man on the spot.