swords?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lorettamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus rebuked Peter because the main reason why Jesus came into this world was to die for our sins. If Peter would have prevented that from happening, it would have messed things up, wouldn’t it?
I don’t disagree, but Peter couldn’t have prevented it with his sword which is part of the reason Jesus reprimands him.
And knowing that they were the ones who were to spread His message to the rest of the world, He didn’t explain the correct teaching even though, according to scripture He had done so in the past all of the other times that they were clueless. Wouldn’t this ensure that they spread the incorrect message? Is this something one would expect from the great teacher?
His reprimand of Peter was the clarification. The apostles lived by the cross and died by the cross- not by the sword.
Jesus wouldn’t be around to protect them any longer and they needed to be able to fend for themselves. Thus the reasons for owning a weapon.
When he sent them out with no purse bag or sandals they had be swift and rely on God’s providence. Jesus is not saying that a sword is taking the place of God’s providence. Their ministry won’t be easy anymore and it won’t be quick. It will tough and hostile. Yet none of them pulled out their swords that I remember.

Honestly, please answer this question. How are two swords (that they already owned) “enough” if Jesus just got telling them to buy swords if they didn’t own them. What do you think Jesus mean by “it is enough”?
 
A money purse meant a money purse and sandals meant sandals but a sword didn’t mean a sword? That’s a bit confusing. Do you think that the great teacher would present His teaching in this manner and not explain when He saw that they failed to grasp the meaning especially when He explained all other things to them? Highly unlikely!
 
Can anyone explain why the Lord instructed everyone to buy a sword if they did not own one, and then immediately say “it is enough” after two people said they already had swords?
 
Can anyone explain why the Lord instructed everyone to buy a sword if they did not own one, and then immediately say “it is enough” after two people said they already had swords?
Because, as I said before, two swords would have been enough for twelve able bodied men to protect themselves against a wild animal or a small band of robbers that they might encounter along the back roads.
 
A money purse meant a money purse and sandals meant sandals but a sword didn’t mean a sword? That’s a bit confusing. Do you think that the great teacher would present His teaching in this manner and not explain when He saw that they failed to grasp the meaning especially when He explained all other things to them? Highly unlikely!
It is much more about what they represent. The reason Jesus sent them without those things was so they would embrace evangelical poverty and a trust in God for their daily provisions. It was a quick training exercise for their leadership leadership in the Church and there was no relative danger.

So when training time was almost over and the hardships were about to begin He asks if they lacked anything? To remind them that the Lord took care of them and he would continue to. He is not telling them to take those things with them later because they should no longer embrace poverty or trust in God for their provision. He was telling them they should expect troubles, and not think they will have such an easy and comfortable life like they had. It won’t be a quick mission. They shouldn’t expect that their friends would be so kind and generous. Their enemies would be fierce (just like the scripture I quoted earlier). They were to arm themselves with an expectation of trouble so they were not surprised by it and the sword of the Spirit was the one they needed.

**Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin) (1 Pet 4:1)

He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to all, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (Luke 9:22-24)**

Then the disciples say they have two swords. I’m not saying anything against swords, because Jesus was not against anyone wearing them, but when he says “it is enough” he is saying how little he would have them depend upon them (one of the swords was Peter’s by the way). Two swords are sufficient for those who don’t need them, because they have God himself. Two swords would be no good against the enemies that were coming against them in large numbers (and everyone of them with a weapon). I don’t know if you realize it, but John describes the crowd as a “band of soldiers” and some Temple officers (jn 18:3). That is a cohort of several hundred (but not more than a thousand) Roman troop.

And Jesus says two swords is enough. Think about it.
 
Then why isn’t any of this explained in scripture when all of Jesus’s other teaching ARE explained? Remember, the scriptures were written many years latter after their minds were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit. If they saw that they misunderstood, then it would be logical to conclude that others would also misunderstand. Why didn’t they explain ESPECIALLY when in all other cases they did offer such explanations. Either this marks the ONE place in all of scripture where Jesus and the Apostles failed to explain a teaching or there is no inconsistency and the reason why there is no explanation is because the apostles understood correctly and no explanation was needed.

I don’t believe that there are inconsistencies in the bible and I’ll take the latter reason. If you take the former, then you are saying that there are inconsistencies in the bible. Something which, again, I disagree with.
And Jesus says two swords is enough. Think about it.
How many times do I have to say this http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=642&pictureid=6061 two swords would have been enough for twelve able bodied men to protect themselves against a wild animal or a small band of robbers that they might encounter along the back roads.
 
Because, as I said before, two swords would have been enough for twelve able bodied men to protect themselves against a wild animal or a small band of robbers that they might encounter along the back roads.
If that were the case, there was no reason for Jesus to say that anyone who did not have a sword should sell their cloak and buy one in the first place (because they already had two swords).

If he literally meant they should all have swords, he wouldn’t have literally said it was enough. Which means he wasn’t speaking literally both times. Every commentary I’ve read (Catholic and Protestant) says the apostles misunderstood him to be speaking literally and he wasn’t.

Honestly, Jesus just got done telling them in the previous chapter that they would be persecuted, handed over to synagogues and to prisons, and before kings. And that they would even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and killed. He didn’t say anything about robbers or wild animals as far as I remember.

The times would be so perilous that no man would think himself safe without a sword by his side, and at some time or another he would wish he had sold his garment and bought one. The time to expect trouble was at hand, and they needed to resign themselves the fact that it was God’s will for them to suffer with the Lord. Arming themselves with that, and not being in opposition to it, would make them much more prepared than if they had sold a coat to buy a sword.

Then all hell breaks loose but the Lord continues teaching by example. He reprimands Peter and rectifies his wrong. And then words he spoke earlier started to come true.

He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone. He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to all, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (Luke 9:21-24)
 
Then why isn’t any of this explained in scripture when all of Jesus’s other teaching ARE explained? Remember, the scriptures were written many years latter after their minds were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit. If they saw that they misunderstood, then it would be logical to conclude that others would also misunderstand. Why didn’t they explain ESPECIALLY when in all other cases they did offer such explanations. Either this marks the ONE place in all of scripture where Jesus and the Apostles failed to explain a teaching or there is no inconsistency and the reason why there is no explanation is because the apostles understood correctly and no explanation was needed.

I don’t believe that there are inconsistencies in the bible and I’ll take the latter reason. If you take the former, then you are saying that there are inconsistencies in the bible. Something which, again, I disagree with.
Most all the commentaries I’ve read say that Jesus clarifies his meaning when he rebukes Peter. I don’t think there is an inconsistency. That is the most widely accepted explaination of the meaning. You are free to disagree.

God bless 🙂
 
Most all the commentaries I’ve read say that Jesus clarifies his meaning when he rebukes Peter. I don’t think there is an inconsistency. That is the most widely accepted explaination of the meaning. You are free to disagree.

God bless 🙂
In all other places, Jesus clarified it right then & there and the clarification appears immediately afterwards. Would the great teacher being clarifying something in the mist of great confusing when he was being taken into custody and when the others were in great fear themselves. From a teaching perspective, would that be the place to explain something that could have been explained earlier in a calmer setting where it could have sunk in and where they could ask questions? Again, it doesn’t sound like something the great teacher would have done.
 
If that were the case, there was no reason for Jesus to say that anyone who did not have a sword should sell their cloak and buy one in the first place (because they already had two swords).

If he literally meant they should all have swords, he wouldn’t have literally said it was enough. Which means he wasn’t speaking literally both times. Every commentary I’ve read (Catholic and Protestant) says the apostles misunderstood him to be speaking literally and he wasn’t.

Honestly, Jesus just got done telling them in the previous chapter that they would be persecuted, handed over to synagogues and to prisons, and before kings. And that they would even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and killed. He didn’t say anything about robbers or wild animals as far as I remember.

The times would be so perilous that no man would think himself safe without a sword by his side, and at some time or another he would wish he had sold his garment and bought one. The time to expect trouble was at hand, and they needed to resign themselves the fact that it was God’s will for them to suffer with the Lord. Arming themselves with that, and not being in opposition to it, would make them much more prepared than if they had sold a coat to buy a sword.

Then all hell breaks loose but the Lord continues teaching by example. He reprimands Peter and rectifies his wrong. And then words he spoke earlier started to come true.

He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone. He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to all, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (Luke 9:21-24)
  1. The people who wrote those footnotes are not inspired writers. They are like Wycliffe, injecting their own politics into scripture. Remember, the preferred interpretation is the literal words.
  2. Whenever the Apostles don’t understand, Jesus always explained. If they don’t understand Him here, why does He make an exception and not explain?
  3. The need for swords is for the future, after He has left the Apostles. He knows what is about to happen, and it happens by His will. He submits to capture, trial and sentencing. He does not need armed attendants.
  4. To “live by the sword” is to be an outlaw. A swordfight in the garden, with serious casualties would have worked against His plan. He does not want the Apostles to be outlawed. He merely wants them able to defend themselves against outlaws. So for the time He was speaking, two swords are indeed enough. Later on, when the Apostles split up and travel to different parts of the world, they will need money bags, food bags and swords, as He directed.
 
Sir Knight, you would probably like this statue of St. Paul in St. Peter’s Square.



It was restored in 1985-86 through the generosity of the Order of the Knights of Columbus.😃

This website has more statues.


'Peter and Paul died for the sake of righteousness, although Peter died a more painful death than Paul, for he loved the flesh more than Paul; he also had to be more conformed to me through his painful death since he held the primacy of my church. Paul, however, inasmuch as he had a greater love of continence and because he had worked harder, died by the sword like a noble knight, for I arrange all things according to merit and measure. So, in God’s judgment it is not how people end their lives or their horrible death that leads to their reward or condemnation, but their intention and will.

The Son of God, to St. Bridget of Sweden

'At the appointed time, Peter arrived in Rome. He raised some people to the positive rank, others to the comparative rank, and still others to the superlative. To the positive rank belonged those who accepted the true faith and lived in matrimony or in another honorable state. To the comparative rank belonged those who gave up their possessions out of love for God, and set others the example of a good life in words and example and deed and did not put anything ahead of Christ. To the superlative rank belonged those who offered their physical lives out of love for God. But let us make a search of these ranks to find out where there is now a more fervent love of God. Let us search among the knights and the learned. Let us search among the religious and those who have scorned the world. These people would be thought to belong to the comparative and superlative ranks. Yet, indeed, very few are found.

There is no life more austere than the life of a knight, if he truly follows his calling. While a monk is obliged to wear a cowl, a knight is obliged to wear something heavier, namely, a coat of mail. While it is hard for a monk to fight against the will of the flesh, it is harder for a knight to go forth among armed enemies. While a monk must sleep on a hard bed, it is harder still for the knight to sleep with his weapons. While a monk finds abstinence a burden and trouble, it is harder for the knight to be constantly burdened by fear for his life. Christian knighthood was not established out of greed for worldly possessions but in order to defend the truth and spread the true faith. For this reason, the knightly rank and the monastic rank should be thought to correspond to the superlative or comparative rank. However, those in every rank have deserted their honorable calling, since the love for God has been perverted into worldly greed. If but a single florin were offered them, most of them in all three ranks would keep silent about the truth rather than lose the florin and speak the truth.’

The Blessed Virgin Mary, to St. Bridget of Sweden

"My daughter, love the Mother of mercy. She is like the flower or reed shaped like a sword. This flower has two sharp extremities and a graceful tip. In height and width it excels all other flowers. Similarly, Mary is the flower of flowers, a flower that grew in a valley and extended over all the mountains. A flower, I say, that was raised in Nazareth and spread itself on Mount Lebanon. This flower had, first of all, height, in the sense that the blessed Queen of heaven excels every creature in dignity and power. Mary also had two sharp edges or leaves, that is, the sorrow in her heart over her Son’s passion along with her steadfast resistance to the attacks of the devil by never consenting to sin.

The old man prophesied truly when he said: 'A sword shall pierce your soul. In a spiritual sense she received as many sword-strokes as the number of wounds and sores she saw her Son receive and that she also had already foreseen. Mary had also a great width, I mean, her mercy. She is and was so kind and merciful that she preferred to suffer any hardship rather than let souls be lost. United now with her Son, she has not forgotten her native goodness but, rather, extends her mercy to all, even to the worst of men. Just as the sun brightens and sets ablaze the heavens and earth, so too there is no one who does not experience Mary’s sweet kindness, if he asks for it. Mary also had a graceful tip, I mean, her humility.

Her humility made her pleasing to the angel when she called herself the Lord’s handmaid, although she was being chosen to be his Lady. She conceived the Son of God in humility, not wanting to please the proud. She ascended the highest throne through humility, loving nothing but God himself. Come forward, then, Conduit, and greet the Mother of mercy, for she has now arrived!"

Blessed Agnes, in a vision of St. Bridget of Sweden’s
 
It strikes me that no answer we have yet considered quite explains the “two swords” passage. The difficulty is that in a moment of deadly solemnity Jesus directed his disciples to procure swords; and that acting upon that direction Peter violently defended Him by cutting off the ear of one of His captors. So if what Peter did in striking the guard was morally wrong would we not be forced to conclude that Jesus counseled Peter to sin? Since that is impossible, it would seem that we must look deeper.
One answer that seems totally unsatisfactory is the spiritualizing of the word “sword” based upon subsequent passages of Scripture. We must bear in mind that the writings of St. Paul, in which he likened the word of God to a sword, were not available to the disciples at that critical moment of Jesus’ arrest. In any case, Jesus was clearly aware that his disciples already had two real swords and that they were, in reliance upon His own words, prepared to use them.
But note what Our Lord says immediately after healing the guard’s ear. Admonishing Peter to put away his sword, He adds words to the effect that those who “live by the sword” will die by it. Now consider, what does it mean “to live by” the sword? The passage is so familiar that we have forgotten its literal sense. To “live by” a thing, whether it be begging, or stealing, or a trade or profession, is to acquire one’s liveihood from it. To “live by the sword,” therefore, means brigandry in some form. But Peter wasn’t engaged in anything of that sort, was he?
Actually, he was! The Sanhedrin was a legitimate authority empowered by God and sanctioned by the ruling Romans. The deputation which came to detain Jesus for interrogation represented that legitimate authority. The charges which had been brought against Jesus, notwithstanding the corrupt motives behind them, were fully within the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. To resist it by force, therefore, was brigandry. Or in more pedestrian language, it was outlawry. In other words, Peter had not misunderstood the literal words of Christ. He had simply misapplied them by acting with violence against a duly constituted authority. It was for this unlawful application of His literal and perfectly legitimate instruction that Our Lord rebuked Peter.
This is why there is no clarification in Scripture of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples to procure swords. It was a literal instruction. But while Jesus meant it literally, He did not intend the flawed inference that Peter clearly drew from it. Did Christ anticipate Peter’s impulsive act of violence? Evidently not! But this is not inconsistent with His human nature, for He was not omniscient. And Peter acted without warning and with no prior hint of his intent that we know of. Jesus therefore did what was in His power to correct the mistake. He healed the ear.
But why was Peter not shamed or troubled by his immoral act of violence, as he was a short time later by his betrayal? It seems to me that the reason for this is that the intent to sin was missing from Peter’s assault upon the guard. Unlike his self-serving denial of his Savior, this was an impulsive though overzealous and misguided act of love. (May all our sins be of this nature!)
It seems to me, therefore, that Christ was speaking of literal swords but failed to foresee how Peter would misapply this instruction. Viewed in this light, there is no need for symbolic analysis not hinted at in the passage or other highly complex or esoteric exegesis.
What is even more curious about this incident in Scripture is that Peter was not himself arrested. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that incongruous detail?
 
It strikes me that no answer we have yet considered quite explains the “two swords” passage. The difficulty is that in a moment of deadly solemnity Jesus directed his disciples to procure swords; and that acting upon that direction Peter violently defended Him by cutting off the ear of one of His captors. So if what Peter did in striking the guard was morally wrong would we not be forced to conclude that Jesus counseled Peter to sin? Since that is impossible, it would seem that we must look deeper.
One answer that seems totally unsatisfactory is the spiritualizing of the word “sword” based upon subsequent passages of Scripture. We must bear in mind that the writings of St. Paul, in which he likened the word of God to a sword, were not available to the disciples at that critical moment of Jesus’ arrest. In any case, Jesus was clearly aware that his disciples already had two real swords and that they were, in reliance upon His own words, prepared to use them.
But note what Our Lord says immediately after healing the guard’s ear. Admonishing Peter to put away his sword, He adds words to the effect that those who “live by the sword” will die by it. Now consider, what does it mean “to live by” the sword? The passage is so familiar that we have forgotten its literal sense. To “live by” a thing, whether it be begging, or stealing, or a trade or profession, is to acquire one’s liveihood from it. To “live by the sword,” therefore, means brigandry in some form. But Peter wasn’t engaged in anything of that sort, was he?
Actually, he was! The Sanhedrin was a legitimate authority empowered by God and sanctioned by the ruling Romans. The deputation which came to detain Jesus for interrogation represented that legitimate authority. The charges which had been brought against Jesus, notwithstanding the corrupt motives behind them, were fully within the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. To resist it by force, therefore, was brigandry. Or in more pedestrian language, it was outlawry. In other words, Peter had not misunderstood the literal words of Christ. He had simply misapplied them by acting with violence against a duly constituted authority. It was for this unlawful application of His literal and perfectly legitimate instruction that Our Lord rebuked Peter.
This is why there is no clarification in Scripture of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples to procure swords. It was a literal instruction. But while Jesus meant it literally, He did not intend the flawed inference that Peter clearly drew from it. Did Christ anticipate Peter’s impulsive act of violence? Evidently not! But this is not inconsistent with His human nature, for He was not omniscient. And Peter acted without warning and with no prior hint of his intent that we know of. Jesus therefore did what was in His power to correct the mistake. He healed the ear.
But why was Peter not shamed or troubled by his immoral act of violence, as he was a short time later by his betrayal? It seems to me that the reason for this is that the intent to sin was missing from Peter’s assault upon the guard. Unlike his self-serving denial of his Savior, this was an impulsive though overzealous and misguided act of love. (May all our sins be of this nature!)
It seems to me, therefore, that Christ was speaking of literal swords but failed to foresee how Peter would misapply this instruction. Viewed in this light, there is no need for symbolic analysis not hinted at in the passage or other highly complex or esoteric exegesis.
What is even more curious about this incident in Scripture is that Peter was not himself arrested. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that incongruous detail?
I say I am impressed with the ‘outlawry’ and ‘acting against legitimate authority’ explanations. 🙂 I have not heard these before this thread. Food for thought.
 
Then why isn’t any of this explained in scripture when all of Jesus’s other teaching ARE explained? Remember, the scriptures were written many years latter after their minds were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit. If they saw that they misunderstood, then it would be logical to conclude that others would also misunderstand. Why didn’t they explain ESPECIALLY when in all other cases they did offer such explanations. Either this marks the ONE place in all of scripture where Jesus and the Apostles failed to explain a teaching or there is no inconsistency and the reason why there is no explanation is because the apostles understood correctly and no explanation was needed.

I don’t believe that there are inconsistencies in the bible and I’ll take the latter reason. If you take the former, then you are saying that there are inconsistencies in the bible. Something which, again, I disagree with.

How many times do I have to say this http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=642&pictureid=6061 two swords would have been enough for twelve able bodied men to protect themselves against a wild animal or a small band of robbers that they might encounter along the back roads.
Perhaps He explained it to them, but it is not written in the Bible.

Also, there are parables to which the explanation is not written in the Scriptures.
 
The gospel authors were writing things down so that Jesus’s message would not be lost after the apostles died off. If Jesus did mean something different and He explained it to them, why wouldn’t they include that explanation? If they, who spent 3+ years with Jesus, misunderstood, then others would certainly misunderstand. Since they wanted to preserve the message of Christ, why would they do something that would ensure that the incorrect meaning would be received?

Why would the Holy Spirit allow that to happen?
 
Adam and Eve disobeyed God. They were driven out of Garden of Eden. Garden guarded by Angel with flaming sword.
Jesus, in Garden of Gethsemane says yes to God in an act of sublime obedience to His will.The ancient curse brought about by Adam’s disobedience is undone. Redemption is about to take place. He tells Peter " Sheath your sword"
From now on fellowship is being restored between God and man and the Gates of Heaven are being opened again. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top