swords?

[Lorettamary]

In todays Passion reading (Luke chapter 22) Jesus instructs his apostles to get hold of swords (if you don’t have a sword sell your cloak and buy one). Then when they use the swords to try to resist arrest Jesus seems to tell them off. I don’t understand why the apostles were instructed to arm themselves with swords when clearly Jesus did not intend or wish for violence to be used. What is the point of this instruction?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The swords represent the two types of authority of the Church:

1. the spiritual (teaching) authority of the Magisterium
2. the temporal authority of the Church

The swords also represent the moral use of violence in defense of self and in defense of others.

 

[patrick457]

In todays Passion reading (Luke chapter 22) Jesus instructs his apostles to get hold of swords (if you don’t have a sword sell your cloak and buy one). Then when they use the swords to try to resist arrest Jesus seems to tell them off. I don’t understand why the apostles were instructed to arm themselves with swords when clearly Jesus did not intend or wish for violence to be used. What is the point of this instruction?

Since Ron has already given the spiritual meaning, a few points I’d like to raise about the literal meaning of the passage:

The swords were probably not like large longswords or something like that. In all likelihood, they were just short daggers or knives. Now, it’s not like these daggers were uncommon; on the contrary, these were considered valuable in everyday life (usually as protection against wild animals or robbers) that even the “peace-loving” Essenes carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one’s adornment. Of course, these would not be of much use against a mob of`armed Temple police and Roman soldiers.

One interpretation I’ve heard of is that Jesus’ command to buy a sword was not supposed to be taken literally.

Jesus, realizing that He was about to be “numbered with the transgressors,” said this because with His arrest those who until now had been with Him would find themselves treated as outlaws; they could no longer count on the charity and hospitality of sympathetic fellow Israelites. Hence, in contrast to the time when He first sent them, He now orders them to carry their own purses and bags. And, because they themselves would be lumped together with bandits by the authorities, they might as well act the part and carry arms, even at the cost of their own cloaks (another essential item in everyday life back then).

This interpretation suggests that Jesus’ reply to the disciples, “It is enough,” was one of exasperation. As we note, two short swords were useless against an armed arrest party; it would all be futile and awkward. Jesus just decided that the disciples didn’t really catch what He said (which shows they’re not yet ‘ready’) and that it was time to drop the subject for now.

 

[katy]

Thanks for that explanation. I was wondering about that this morning myself.

 

[ryanoneil]

Metaphrically the swords represent the coming spiritual battle they would face. He says “It is enough” out of frustration, because they thought he was speaking literally.

 

[Garyjohn2]

It is because he said the prophesy must be fulfilled…they he will be counted amoung transgressors and outlaws. They have to have swords to be counted as rebels. Two is enough, because he doesn’t really want a fight.

It’s only to appear as rebels, to help fulfill the prophesy.

 

[John_Pascendi]

Its a play on words…like TRs.“speak softly but carry a big stick” Jesus wanted them to arm themselves with the Truth so that they could out debate the enemy.but as to fighting professional soldiers.no way! That was with Peter also.He was a fisherman and had no knowledge or skill with weapons,Jesus had plans for him and so ordered him to put back his sword. One thus uses 'verbal 'weapons against intellectual arguments against the faith,and 'physical 'weapons againts those who invade ones home and country.(makes sense to me,thats why when Paul Revere made that historic ride,it was to warn the colonists that there means of protecting themselves was under-attack by the occupying forces…'to arms,to arms…etc")…Pas

 

[choy]

my understanding of it is Jesus is foretelling the persecution of His followers

they must arm themselves to protect themselves when He is gone

true enough for the next 300 years, Christians were persecuted

 

[Stonehouse]

All of the answers offered thus far are plausible and seem consistent with Christ’s mission. However it is sometimes possible to over-spiritualize the words of scripture. For instance, the Protestant sects go to great pains to avoid the literal meaning of the phrase “This is my body.” Absent some compelling reason to reject a literal interpretation, could we be subjecting the sword passage to our own retrospective symbology?

I have puzzled over the question of the swords for many decades. Did Jesus speak carelessly or perhaps have second thoughts? Though He was sinless, He was not exempt from practical error. For instance, he could stumble or “dash his foot against a stone.” Was He still struggling to discern a way around His passion, as He had in Gethsemene? Remember that if He was not tempted He was not a man at all! Was the exchange of cloak for sword a known metaphor which the disciples should have recognized? Was Jesus testing them to see whether or not they had come to understand His mission? If so, why did He allow Peter to assault the guard before telling them all to desist? Since He did allow this act of violence, and since His own words provoked it, must we not conclude that it was a righteous act?

This leads us to a point of some delicacy. If, as it appears, the violent defense of Jesus by his disciples was a righteous act inspired by His own words, then it is circular to argue that his instruction to them to procure swords was a subtle injunction against such violence. For this argument relies upon the premise that Jesus would resort to an obscure linguistic device to condemn the very act which His own behavior condoned. That He discountenanced the assault after it had occurred does not alter this fact.

At such a deadly serious moment, which had to instill great dread and confusion in His small band of followers, would Christ really have resorted to a gratuitously deceptive instruction bordering on sarcasm? For that is what some explanations of His call for the purchase of swords seems to imply. And if the disciples had misunderstood Him, would He not have explained, as He did when they questioned His command that they eat His flesh, the spiritual dimension of His words?

Subsequent to this event, is there any other known instance where the disciples resorted to the sword? If there is not, does this indicate they had learned from the Savior that self-defense was morally impermissible? Or did they merely choose martyrdom in imitation of Him and as the more practical alternative for spreading the faith? How is it that Peter went in one night from the courage of the sword to the shame of denial? And how is it that he wept over his betrayal but not over the zealous act of violence which preceded it?

Is it possible that the story is exactly what it appears to be, a righteous call to arms followed by the practical realization that self-defense was not possible or even consistent with the sacrificial mission Christ willingly accepted? Is the message to us that both violent defense of the innocent and willing self-sacrifice can be virtuous in the proper circumstances?

I have no answers, only questions. No explanation of the incident seems fully satisfying. But for me this conundrum evokes a human frailty I find deeply gripping. It seems to tell us something a little different about Our Lord, that His heart was divided even before the lance. It suggests that perhaps He was struggling with the duty he had accepted from His Father in a way so painful that it shattered His person almost to the point of distraction. I imagine He felt the same sense of anguish as when He cried out, “My God, why have you forsaken me!”

 

[tblachut]

To Stonehouse:

What an incredibly thoughtful and interesting reply. I team teach catechism with another man and our class numbers 13 very nice 13 and 14 year old young men who next year (God willing) will receive their confirmations. We try very hard to be patient and tolerant and help them develop a true love for Christ and His Church. We certainly wouldn’t want to be responsible for causing any of them to turn their hearts away from the Church. But at the same time, they are adolescents and sometimes you just have to step on them a little to keep them in line and not allow them to take advantage of your good nature or waste the time of those young men who are interested in learning something.

I prayed for guidance on this one evening during class and found that not only was I able to see the boys with new eyes, but their behavior improved. Holding in my heart the truth about who those boys really are and why we were all there and calling on God’s grace and power to help us accomplish His will is the most powerful spiritual sword I could have possibly been armed with.

 

[Shin]

‘This saying which is written in the Gospel: “Let him who has no sword, sell his mantle and buy one,” (Luke 22:36) means this: let him who is at ease give it up and take the narrow way.’

St. Poemen

‘Do not deceive yourself, you will obtain nothing except at the very point of the sword. That is to say, you must do violence to self, and be of the number of those who take Heaven by storm.’

St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

‘If a priest is determined not to lose his soul, so soon as any disorder arises in the parish he must trample under foot all human considerations as well as the fear of the contempt and hatred of his people. He must not allow anything to bar his way in the discharge of duty, even where he is certain of being murdered on coming down from the pulpit. A pastor who wants to do his duty must keep his sword in hand at all times.’

St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars

‘He who neglects action and depends on theoretical knowledge holds a staff of reed instead of a double-edged sword; and when he confronts his enemies in time of war, “it will go into his hand, and pierce it” (2 Kgs. 18:21), injecting its natural poison.’

St. Mark the Ascetic

‘A good Christian watches continually, sword in hand. The devil can do nothing against him, for he resists him like a warrior in full armour; he does not fear him, because he has rejected from his heart all that is impure. Bad Christians are idle and lazy, and stand hanging their heads; and you see how they give way at the first assault: the devil does what he pleases with them; he presents pleasures to them, he makes them taste pleasure, and then, to drown the cries of their conscience, he whispers to them in a gentle voice, “You will sin no more.” And when the occasion presents itself, they fall again, and more easily than the first time. If they go to confession he makes them ashamed, they speak only in half-words, they lower their voice, they explain away their sins, and, what is more miserable, they perhaps conceal some. The good Christian, on the contrary, groans and weeps over his sins, and reaches the tribunal of Penance already half justified.’

St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars

‘There is an anger which is engendered of evil, and there is an anger engendered of good. Hastiness of temper is the cause of the evil, divine principle is the cause of the good, such as that which Phinees felt when he allayed God’s anger by the use of his own sword.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Let every man kill his neighbours, that have been initiated to Beelphegor.

“Initiated to Beelphegor”… That is, they took to the worship of Beelphegor, an obscene idol of the Moabites, and were consecrated, as it were, to him.

And behold one of the children of Israel went in before his brethren to a harlot of Madian, in the sight of Moses, and of all the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle. And when Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from the midst; of the multitude, and taking a dagger, Went in after the Israelite into the brothel house, and thrust both of them through together, to wit, the man and the woman in the genital parts. And the scourge ceased from the children of Israel: And there were slain four and twenty thousand men. And the Lord said to Moses:

Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel: because he was moved with my zeal against them, that I myself might not destroy the children of Israel in my zeal. Therefore say to him: Behold I give him the peace of my covenant, and the covenant of the priesthood for ever shall be both to him and his seed, because he hath been zealous for his God, and hath made atonement for the wickedness of the children of Israel.

Numbers 25:5-13

And he took the wood for the holocaust, and laid it upon Isaac his son: and he himself carried in his hands fire and a sword. And as they two went on together; Isaac said to his father: My father. And he answered: What wilt thou, son?

Genesis 22:6-7

We could use more priests of this caliber.

 

[ryanoneil]

It sure makes you wonder. Some of these men, who defended their people with the sword, were praised for their faithfulness

What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions, put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders. (Heb 11:32-34)

 

[Shin]

The Church has a long history of military religious orders. Currently they are pretty much non-functional or gone, because we live in an age when the Church militant is largely compromised and the opposite of militant – but according to Catholic prophecy the last and greatest order which will do more good than all the other orders of the Church will be a military order. It will contain military knights, solitaries, priests, and hospitalliers.

“This shall be the last religious order in the Church, and it will do more good for our holy religion than all other religious institutions.”

St. Francis of Paola

“… the spirit of prophecy is granted to me often to foretell most wonderful events in relation to the reformation of the Church and the most High.”

St. Francis of Paola

 

[Stonehouse]

The Church has a long history of military religious orders. Currently they are pretty much non-functional or gone, because we live in an age when the Church militant is largely compromised and the opposite of militant – but according to Catholic prophecy the last and greatest order which will do more good than all the other orders of the Church will be a military order. It will contain military knights, solitaries, priests, and hospitalliers.

“This shall be the last religious order in the Church, and it will do more good for our holy religion than all other religious institutions.”

St. Francis of Paola

“… the spirit of prophecy is granted to me often to foretell most wonderful events in relation to the reformation of the Church and the most High.”

St. Francis of Paola

 

[ryanoneil]

On the other hand, it make me wonder why none of the believers in the book of Revelation take up arms. Instead they sing a new song.

 

[Stonehouse]

The Church has a long history of military religious orders. Currently they are pretty much non-functional or gone, because we live in an age when the Church militant is largely compromised and the opposite of militant…

There was a hymn once sung by the church militant. “Onward Christian Soldiers!” Some may have heard of it.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

When I was a boy, my marching band was called the “Crusaders,” and this was our theme song. In fact, it was written in the 19th Century as a processional for young people. But it also served as an inspiration for grown men engaged in desperate battle against the enemies of God’s kingdom on earth. Ace Collins, in his “Stories Behind the Hymns that Inspired America,” relates that Winston Churchill had it played during the darkest hours of WWII. Churchill explained:

“We sang ‘Onward, Christian Soldiers’ indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we were serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet had sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals … it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless degradation.”

Since the dawn of political correctness we aren’t supposed to think like that any more. So this song has been purged from our choirs, along with Battle Hymn of the Republic. And we apologize for the Crusades which saved Western Civilization from the centuries long advance of Islam. We are the warm fuzzy Christians, the kind who not only don’t judge others but also refrain from judging actions themselves to be good or evil, lest we give offense.

Except, of course, for “violence.” Even when employed in defense of the innocent, violence makes us a little queazy. It is a marvelous thing, how we credit this to ourselves as virtue. Pre-schoolers are now sent home from school for pretending that their finger is a gun! But what would Saint Joan of Arc have thought of this anemic attitude we hold toward the “manly virtues?” Why is it that we cannot see what is clearly a cultural quirk and an historical anomaly for the moral apathy that it really is?

In my original reply to the “two swords” passage I addressed only the question of what Jesus meant when he directed his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords. Consequently, though my remarks extended only to that narrow circumstance they may have given the impression that I was unclear about violent self-defense. In the broader context, the use of force to defend the innocent is not only morally legitimate, it is a Christian duty. Or are we to have no police! For it is we who pay them, and so they represent us all when they club and shoot and bind. A time will come when people look back at our place in history with wonder that we had so much and gave it up so easily, that once we had abandoned the defense of virtue we soon lost the capacity to defend even ourselves.

 

[Cristian_B]

A ‘sword’ also represents the word of God in the Bible. Perhaps this is what He refers to?

 

[Shin]

Shin;6469479:

The Church has a long history of military religious orders. Currently they are pretty much non-functional or gone, because we live in an age when the Church militant is largely compromised and the opposite of militant…

There was a hymn once sung by the church militant. “Onward Christian Soldiers!” Some may have heard of it.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

.

Thanks for the quotations. I’ve heard -of- it, but in these times sadly I have not to my recollection -heard it-.

 

[eternalquestion]

A ‘sword’ also represents the word of God in the Bible. Perhaps this is what He refers to?

Would Jesus instruct his disciples to sell their cloaks for something they already had?

 

[rcjones]

Prov 1:14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:

When Jesus said to take up their own purses, he was simply disbanding them.

A script is a little bag or a shepherd pouch as found in 1Sa 17:40

1Sa 17:40 ¶ And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd’s bag which he had, even in a scrip; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine.

David as a shadow of Christ, put five smooth stones in the ‘shepherd’s pouch or vessel’. Christ Himself is THE Shepherd’s Vessel. The five stones refer to the the five doctrinal stones about the Messiah.

In sensus plenior 1Sa 17:40 loosely reads: And he began his work of discipline, and selected five earthly divided (smooth also means divided) stones out of the word, and put them in a shepherds vessel even in the gleaning bag…

What is a shepherd’s vessel if it is not Christ himself?

We need to look at five divided stones:

Jacobs pillow
Jacob took many stones as pillows but when he arose they were one stone.

Gen 28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.

Gen 28:18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

This helped the boy Jesus connect the dots between all the stones in the scripture and he saw them as one.

So when he was 12 and in the temple, when he asked “what are these stones?” he asked about all the stones as though they were one rather than about a pile of rocks down by the water.

Jos 4: 6 That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones? in time...: Heb. to morrow

Jos 4:21 And he spake unto the children of Israel, saying, When your children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean these stones? in time...: Heb. to morrow

He took further comfort in the story of Jacobs dream knowing that the Messiah would be the one to bridge the gap between heaven and earth as the ladder.

The tablets of the Law
The tablets of the law were written on two tablets that were divided between the heavenly and the earthly. From this he knew that God (the Rock) would be on earth as well as in heaven.

Ex 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

** Do you see the four voices hinted here? Two tables written on both sides. Four voices.

The smitten rocks of Exodus

Although there are two rocks…

Ps 78:15 He clave the rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths.

They are one rock as referenced by Paul.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ…

The two rocks were disciplined by the rod of God which meant he had to die in heaven and on earth in accordance with the scriptures and the law of God. The comfort in this is that the living water sprung forth from the rocks as from his death.

The cleft of the rock

Ex 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

In this picture Moses is Jesus who is taking refuge in the cleft rock, his own death. Afterwards he has the ‘glow of God’ as his face shines. From this Jesus knew he would be glorified after death.

David’s five stones
Five is the number of man. These tell Jesus that the stones are a man. And that it takes but a single word to ‘kill’ Satan’s authority.

Jesus remembered the divided stones

Mr 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

He spoke of his body…

**Taking their own shepherds’s vessel (script) means that they should now find the source of meaning for their lives in the stones as Christ Himself did.

**

Since garments represent works, and the sword represents the word of God, He is telling them not to rely upon their past, but to live by every word that proceeds from his mouth.

If this passage of the reading, and Peter’s fishing trip are in the reading, it should be no surprise they both talk about living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.