swords?

[archistrage]

I think that we need to look at in light of the Covenants. Remember, Christ said that he had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The Old Covenant taught us Justice, which is the cornerstone for civilization, while the New Covenant taught us Mercy, which is the cornerstone for the individual. These two are incomplete without each other.

The O.T. shows us that yes, there are sometimes when fighting is the right thing to do. What Christ teaches us in the N.T., is that we should never be the aggressor in a situation. We should always be in control of ourselves. But even the Church itself teaches that in a situation in which we must defend ourselves, or defend others, it is our duty to fight, and to neutralize the attacker.

So if you’re looking at this from the point of view of having an Offense, then your taking the wrong stance on this. But if you look at it from a Defensive point, then it takes on a whole new stance. It possess a duel meaning.
A) Mental/Spiritual - This is the ‘The sword is the Word of God’ point. Get the money to buy books and study, so that you can be prepared to defend your faith in arguments and debates.
B) Literal - You need to buy an actual sword, so that you are capable of defending yourself should the need arise. Remember, “Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.” You’re not going out to buy a sword so you can go kill somebody, it’s so you have a way of protecting yourself and your loved ones should things go to hell. (Literally and metaphorically)

The purpose of Christ’s ministry was to teach us to love each other, in both thought and deed. To take on a new attitude when viewing others. Take for instance the adulterer who is brought before him. According to the Law of Moses, she should be stoned. That’s the thing, she deserved to be stoned. The punishment God gives us in the O.T. is true and just. The problem is, that the people were not trying to stone her for just reasons. It was to test Christ. That was why he reminded them that we are all sinners, to have some empathy for the women. So that we will always bear in mind, that while in many cases we wish people would get what’s coming to them, how often do we think we should get what’s coming to us?

Archistrage

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

The scriptures tell us the sword is likened to the Word of God because “it cuts all the way through, to where soul and spirit meet” (He 4:12).

And St Paul tells us that when we fight against the wicked spiritual forces, we should use “the word of God as the sword” (Eph 6:17).

This may explain the weird vision St John describes, in the book of The Revelations, where Christ is seen with a sword coming out of His mouth (Rev 1:16).

 

[Cristian_B]

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

Perhaps He wasn’t referring solely to His apostles, but all His disciples: all Christians. There are Christians that don’t know His word very well.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Scripture tells us that while Jesus spoke in the abstract to the people, He always explained what He meant to His followers in private and we always see that explanation in the scripture passage. If Jesus was not speaking literally and He did not mean real swords, why did He not explain what He meant by that comment? Especially when He did so all of the other times?

Perhaps it was because the Apostles understood correctly and no further explanation was needed.

Additionally, Jesus was preparing them to spread His message to the ends of the earth, if Jesus did not mean actually swords, why would He fail to explain the proper meaning to them when He saw that they understood incorrectly? Wouldn’t this assure that they would spread the wrong message? Is that something a great teacher would have done? Not properly explain a teaching to those that were to spread that teaching across the globe? Highly unlikely.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Perhaps He wasn’t referring solely to His apostles, but all His disciples: all Christians. There are Christians that don’t know His word very well.

And they were suppose to sell their coats and BUY the Word? From whom? And who was selling it? The Apostles never charged anyone for passing on the message of the Gospel.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

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.

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.

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.

** 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…

They are one rock as referenced by Paul.

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

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.

That’s your interpretation of it. The Apostles, who lived with Jesus for three years and were personally taught by Jesus, understood Him to mean actually swords. When their minds were opened to to the message of the Gospel by the Holy Spirit and they wrote the teachings down, they explained ALL other abstract teachings of Our Lord EXCEPT this one. Why? I’ll tell you why. Because it was not an abstract this and Jesus was talking about actual swords and therefore no further explanation was needed.

 

[rcjones]

And they were suppose to sell their coats and BUY the Word? From whom? And who was selling it? The Apostles never charged anyone for passing on the message of the Gospel.

Figurative language is… well, figurative. From whom were the five virgins to buy their oil? Forcing a literal ‘buy’ into a figurative interpretation never works.

Pr 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

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!

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.

 

[rcjones]

When their minds were opened to to the message of the Gospel by the Holy Spirit and they wrote the teachings down, they explained ALL other abstract teachings of Our Lord EXCEPT this one.

I am sure you have an exhaustive enumeration of all the abstract teachings of the Lord. I would like to see this.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Figurative language is… well, figurative. From whom were the five virgins to buy their oil? Forcing a literal ‘buy’ into a figurative interpretation never works.

Pr 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.

As I said before, scripture tells us that while Jesus spoke figuratively to the crowds, He always explained what He meant to His Apostles and we always see that explanation.

Why would this be the only place in all of the Gospels where such an explanation is missing? I submit because they understood correctly and no further explanation was needed.

Keep in mind that these passages were written many years later after their minds were opened to the true meaning of the gospels by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they misunderstood the teaching themselves, why would they not explain the teaching when they wrote it down? Failure to do so would ensure that others would also misunderstand it. Is that a proper way to spread the true message of Christ?

Finally, Jesus was preparing them to spread His message to the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why wouldn’t He provide the correct meaning?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am sure you have an exhaustive enumeration of all the abstract teachings of the Lord. I would like to see this.

Just open your bible. Whenever you see Jesus speaking figuratively, an explanation follows shortly there after.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This interpretation suggests that Jesus’ reply to the disciples, “It is enough,” was one of exasperation.

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.

I asked this before and I’ll ask it again:

1. 
   *]Why does scripture tell us that Jesus explained all of His abstract teachings but we see no such explanation here?
   
   *]Seeing that they misunderstood Him, why would Jesus not explain the teaching especially since He was counting on them to bring His message to others? If they misunderstood and He didn’t give them the proper meaning, wouldn’t that ensure that they would be spreading the wrong message? Is this what one would expect from the Great Teacher?
   
   *]When their minds were opened by the Holy Spirit to the message of the Gospel, why did they not clarify this teaching when they took the time to clarify all of Christ’s other figurative language?

 

[ryanoneil]

I asked this before and I’ll ask it again:

1. 
   *]Why does scripture tell us that Jesus explained all of His abstract teachings but we see no such explanation here?
   
   *]Seeing that they misunderstood Him, why would Jesus not explain the teaching especially since He was counting on them to bring His message to others? If they misunderstood and He didn’t give them the proper meaning, wouldn’t that ensure that they would be spreading the wrong message? Is this what one would expect from the Great Teacher?
   
   *]When their minds were opened by the Holy Spirit to the message of the Gospel, why did they not clarify this teaching when they took the time to clarify all of Christ’s other figurative language?

1. 
   First, I’m not saying anything against self-defense or just war, but Jesus did clarify his meaning when he rebuked Peter for violently defending him with a sword.
   
   His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, “Lord, shall we strike with a sword?” And one of them struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said in reply, “Stop, no more of this!” Then he touched the servant’s ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51)
   
   Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Mt 26:52)
   
   Beside, he would be contradicting himself if he said two swords “is enough” right after telling them they all need swords. Stuff was going to hit the fan and they had to prepair for everything he told them previously. But in usual fashion they remained clueless.
   
   "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. (Mt 10:34-38)
   
   Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Mt 10:21-23)
   
   They would be the ones bringing the sword and there would be demands and consequences for disciplship.

 

[rcjones]

There is a bit of circular reasoning to say that all figurative speech was explained, then point to some explanations and say that all others are not figurative.

And the testimony of the Holy Ghost filled Apostles is that they were all pacifists. None of them used a sword to defend themselves, trusting solely in Christ… THE Word… THE Sword.

 

[rwillenborg]

I’m confused.
Couldn’t Jesus have actually meant to go buy swords? Defending oneself isn’t against christianity, is it?
I mean, does his speaking here HAVE to be figurative?

 

[Sir_Knight]

There is a bit of circular reasoning to say that all figurative speech was explained, then point to some explanations and say that all others are not figurative.

It isn’t circular reasoning at all. Scripture even tells us that Jesus explained all of His abstract teachings. No such explanation is seen here.

And the testimony of the Holy Ghost filled Apostles is that they were all pacifists. None of them used a sword to defend themselves, trusting solely in Christ… THE Word… THE Sword.

They were to sell their coats and purchase the Word? From who were they to purchase the Word from?

 

[Sir_Knight]

First, I’m not saying anything against self-defense or just war, but Jesus did clarify his meaning when he rebuked Peter for violently defending him with a sword.

His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, “Lord, shall we strike with a sword?” And one of them struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said in reply, “Stop, no more of this!” Then he touched the servant’s ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51)

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Mt 26:52)

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?

Beside, he would be contradicting himself if he said two swords “is enough” right after telling them they all need swords. Stuff was going to hit the fan and they had to prepair for everything he told them previously. But in usual fashion they remained clueless.

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?

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. (Mt 10:34-38)

Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Mt 10:21-23)

These two passages have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Nothing.

They would be the ones bringing the sword and there would be demands and consequences for disciplship.

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.

 

[Cristian_B]

And they were suppose to sell their coats and BUY the Word? From whom? And who was selling it? The Apostles never charged anyone for passing on the message of the Gospel.

In the sense that we should get everything to have the word for it is life.

EDIT: Also, if I may add, if the message was for us, not many people give free Bibles…

 

[Sir_Knight]

The main point was not on the selling but on the buying. One should BUY a sword and if one does not have the money, then one is to sell their cloak and buy it. The main point is on the buying and that implies that somebody was SELLING for Word of God and that was not the case. Additionally, Jesus NEVER told the Apostles to write down what He said but to PREACH it. And when they were preaching it, they were not charging for it. So to say that people were to buy it makes no sense.

Thus, disproving that in this context, the sword referred to the Word of God.

As I said, the Apostles who lived with Jesus for three years understood Jesus to mean actual swords. Jesus, who was depending on them to spread His message, did not correct them – something a great teacher would have done if they misunderstood to prevent them from spreading the wrong message. Finally, after their minds were opened by the Holy Spirit, they wrote these teachings down and in all other places explained any abstract teachings EXCEPT for this one. The only conclusion that one can draw is that this was not an abstract teaching but that Jesus meant actual swords.

 

[Cristian_B]

The main point was not on the selling but on the buying. One should BUY a sword and if one does not have the money, then one is to sell their cloak and buy it. The main point is on the buying and that implies that somebody was SELLING for Word of God and that was not the case. Additionally, Jesus NEVER told the Apostles to write down what He said but to PREACH it. And when they were preaching it, they were not charging for it. So to say that people were to buy it makes no sense.

Thus, disproving that in this context, the sword referred to the Word of God.

As I said, the Apostles who lived with Jesus for three years understood Jesus to mean actual swords. Jesus, who was depending on them to spread His message, did not correct them – something a great teacher would have done if they misunderstood to prevent them from spreading the wrong message. Finally, after their minds were opened by the Holy Spirit, they wrote these teachings down and in all other places explained any abstract teachings EXCEPT for this one. The only conclusion that one can draw is that this was not an abstract teaching but that Jesus meant actual swords.

(Luke 22:38 MKJV) And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them, It is enough.

Do you believe that when He said ‘enough’ He meant two swords are enough and more are not necessary or was He actually saying that enough of their misunderstanding?