What does Luke 22:35-38 mean?

[EphelDuath]

newadvent.org/bible/luk022.htm

22:35. When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything?

22:36. But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.

22:37. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end.

22:38. But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough.

“Each of you, sell your clothes and buy a sword.”
“We already have two swords.”
“Alright, that’s enough.”

What?

 

[thommie]

I have not studied this passage extensively, but my take on it has been that, in the time to come after the death of our Saviour, the disciples, and by extension we, would need to make provisions for carrying out our ministries, and that those provisions may include the need to provide our defense.

I have understood His statement, “It is enough,” to be an expression of frustration at their apparent misunderstanding of what He said (remember their confusion when He told them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees?), especially their over-literal response to the sword thing. However, others have understood it to mean that two swords in the company of 12 would be enough to number them among transgressors.

His warning against “living by the sword” just a few verses later indicates that He had, at most, self-defense in mind, rather than a life of violence.

 

[Todd_Easton]

From A Commentary on the New Testament, published by the Catholic Biblical Association, 1942, page 286, on Luke 22:34b-38:

34b-38. Peculiar to Luke. 35. Cf. Luke 9:3; 10:4. 36. It seems fairly certain that Jesus meant these words here in a figurative sense. Hitherto the Apostles had lived in peace and were without want, but now they will soon be confronted with all sorts of hardships and trials. To meet these dangers they must be perpared and armed with spiritual weapons. 37. Cf. Isaiah 53:12. 38. Understanding the words of 36 in the literal sense, the Apostles missed the point completely. Jesus replied, “Enough,” i.e., let us drop the subject. The Apostles’ misunderstanding of our Lord’s words about the sword is shown in Matthew 26:51f and parallels.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The words are literal. This passage is just before Jesus’ arrest in the garden. The area that they were traveling in was well known for robbers. The swords were for personal protection. They were not for offensive attacking of another person. Later when Peter cut off a man’s ear while Jesus was being arrested, Jesus healed the man and warned against unneccessary violence – “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”.

Exodus 22:2-3 (King James Version)

2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Basically, self defense when one’s life is in danger is allowable. But, killing a robber when lesser means of dealing with him is avilable is not allowed.

John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Basically, the thief is an armed robber and it is permissible to defend oneself in such a case.

Basic princlple, it is ok to use force to repeal a violent attacker to preserve life. Rahab, was in the hall of faith ( hebrews 11 ) because she lied to save the spies lives. I use her as an example of it being ok to do something to preserve life. Jesus healed on the sabbath, by doing so he was following the Jewish concept of saving a life or making a person whole when immediate action was required to do so.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Well done Daniel, the only sensible answer.

 

[Manresa]

No the words are not literal. It is important to understand that in certain places in his gospel and in Acts, St. Luke uses irony to make a point, this is one of those places.

In Acts, St. Paul and the missionaries never arm themsleves and accept their fate as it comes.

What Our Lord, who preached peace, love of one’s enemies and praying for your enemies, the peace makers are the children of God, be meek and humble as I am… etc…, is saying here makes it illogical to assume that all of sudden Jesus is telling people to arm themselves.

The swords He is speaking of here are figurative and eludes to many things, the ways of the world that being the temporal and the spiritual, Judas’ infidelity to his master and Jesus’ fidelity to His mission and His followers, violence versus non-violent resistance etc…

With all of this taken into consideration, which is the whole of the gospels - - Our Lord’s teachings- -, it is not only illogical but impossible to even remotely assume that Jesus was referring to an actual sword, a weapon of death. In the passages spoken of in this thread, we see Our Lord dismissing the Apostles in disgust for them taking Him literally and then reprimanding St. Peter in the garden when he cuts off the ear of the High Priest’s (Caiphas) servant.

 

[SeanTom]

Perhaps I am way off base here. But it does not seem so mysterious that Jesus asked the disciples to carry two swords. Jesus also asked Peter, James, and John to “watch and pray”. Today we probably usually think of the expression “watch and pray” in terms of watching and praying in our daily life or in terms of preparation for the second coming of Jesus.

However, I don’t see any necessary conflict in assuming that it could also mean to watch in the sense of standing guard. Obviously Jesus knew that he had some pretty hard praying to do at Gethsemane and it would be good if he were not distracted. Some overly zealous co-religionists had already tried to kill him a number of times, so the idea of guarding would seem just common sense. Furthermore, being both 100% human and 100% divine, it seems to me that Jesus was obligated to take reasonable precautions while praying in this particularly dangerous circumstance. Even though Jesus was ready to give up his life for the sake of the gospel and for the salvation of souls, nevertheless HUMANLY speaking it may not have been HUMANLY 100% obvious that this was the appropriate moment to do so. Furthermore, from the standpoint of being a good Jew, Jesus could have opened himself to the criticism that he was risking his life foolishly. Therefore Jesus might have ordered the disciples to carry the swords in order to “fulfill all righteousness”, just as he insisted on being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan at the start of his ministry.

 

[Bennie_P]

newadvent.org/bible/luk022.htm

“Each of you, sell your clothes and buy a sword.”
“We already have two swords.”
“Alright, that’s enough.”

What?

Jesus was warning them about hard times ahead and the should be prepared for the diffuculties, but they thought he was talking about being armed to defend themselves, - then he just threw up his hands:shrug: “alright” (idiots)“that’s enough” - :doh2: (you still don’t get it, three years with me and you still don’t get it) - the preparness he was talking about was to be prepared spiritually and they where still thinking worldly.

 

[JohnisLight]

I believe Jesus was telling them that the hour has come for when they will be on their own and need to gird themselves up (represented by the provisions) with the armor of God or the Word (the sword). Note Jesus says sell your garment so the apostle will now be naked but with a sword; meaning they are now clothed with the protection of the Holy Spirit / Armor of God - the Word but he who does not have the word its time to understand it and quickly no more guessing or being confused (represented by the nakedness). Then Jesus goes into a vague explanation about his crucifixion. The two swords could be seen in Psalms 149: May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands, to execute vengeance on the nations.
Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is alive and exerts powers and is sharper than any two edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and (their) marrow, and (is) able to discern thoughts and intentions of (the ) heart.”
The two swords has to do with prophecy and the power of the Word of God that is all that is needed or Enough!

 

[TimothyH]

This thread broght to mind the swords which come out of Christ’s mouth in the Book of Revelation.

***Therefore, repent. Otherwise, I will come to you quickly and wage war against them with the sword of my mouth. **(Revelation 2:16)

Out of his mouth came a sharp sword to strike the nations. (Revelation 19:15)

**The rest were killed by the sword that came out of the mouth of the one riding the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. *(19:21)

Could it be that Peter’s two swords represent the sharp edged word of God?

Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

As I think about this, I am taking great delight in noticing that Peter has the swords and that he cuts off the ear of the High Priest’s slave. Perhaps the High Priest (Jewish authority) and his slave (Jews were slaves to the Egyptians) did not initially respond to Jesus words (ear cut off) but were later healed by Jesus (Jews will eventually come into the Church).

Are the two swords the Old and New Testament? The Law and the Prophets?

Maybe I am reaching here, but it is fun to speculate on these things. The Bible is so super amazingly awsome.

-Tim-

 

[thistle]

newadvent.org/bible/luk022.htm

“Each of you, sell your clothes and buy a sword.”
“We already have two swords.”
“Alright, that’s enough.”

What?

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 36. That hath not, &c. Whilst the apostles are contending for prerogative, he reminds them that now is the time of danger and slaughter; for I, your Master, (says he) shall be led to a dishonourable death, and reputed among the wicked: as all which hath been foretold of me shall have their end; that is, be fulfilled. Wishing also to insinuate the violence of the assaults they themselves will have to sustain, he mentions a sword; but does not reveal all, lest they should be too much alarmed; nor does he entirely suppress the mention of it, lest sudden attacks might overpower them, had they not been forewarned. (Theophylactus)

Ver. 38. Behold here are two swords, &c. The disciples not understanding the hidden meaning of the words in the preceding verse, and thinking they should have need of swords against the attack of the traitor Judas, say, behold here two swords. (St. Cyril) — But if he had wished them to rely upon human aid, not even a hundred swords would have sufficed; but, if the power of man was unnecessary in their regard, even two swords are sufficient, and more than are wanted. (St. Chrysostom) — Even two swords are sufficient testimony of our Saviour’s having suffered spontaneously. One to shew that the apostles had courage to contend for their Master, and that their Lord had the power of healing the servant, Malchus, who was maimed; the other, which was not drawn from its scabbard, shews that the apostles were withheld from doing in his defence as much as they could have done. (Ven. Bede)

 

[jochoa]

What?

35 When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything? 36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. 37 For I say to you, that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. 38 But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.

Jesus is telling them to literally take a sword, in order to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12

12 Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.

Jesus knew one of the apostles would strike a soldier, the authority, which is why two swords was enough, and thereby making the apostle a criminal, aka wicked, and in turn fulfilling the prophecy that the Savior will be counted among the wicked.

Therefore, since the prophecy has been fulfilled, there is no need for us to take a sword. Furthermore, in the least, Jesus is saying it is wicked to strike your authority. As an extension, out of reverence for Christ, we are to be subordinate to one another, and therefore, we should not strike one another.

Thank you very much for sharing such an intriguing question. I have really enjoyed reflecting on it for quite some time. May the peace of Christ be with you always, especially through your most difficult struggles!

 

[thistle]

This thread has been dormant for 3 years. We are not to resurrect old threads. A new thread should be started even to discuss the same topic.

 

[jochoa]

This thread has been dormant for 3 years. We are not to resurrect old threads. A new thread should be started even to discuss the same topic.

I am sorry, and I will not do this again.

 

[BenRosa]

Greetings:

An underlying thread I am interested in here, is self-defense verses martyrdom, particularly, the distinction between the two. Consider these scenarios:

You are a legal gun owner, competent in its use:

A) Someone breaks into your home to steal your property & perhaps, harm/kill you/family in the process if need be.

B) Someone breaks into your home to take you/family away (for interrogation or to jail or execute you) because you are a faithful Catholic.

Are you allowed to defend yourself in any of these scenarios using your gun?

Thanks for any feedback,
Ed in Tampa

 

[jochoa]

Are you allowed to defend yourself in any of these scenarios using your gun?

Referencing the CCC #2263-2267 on legitimate defense, I interpret that if either scenario advances to a genuine threat of life, in which efforts to prevent harm escalated to the taking of an aggressor’s life, then this falls under legitimate defense. As for scenario B, the recommendation is to use the minimum amount of force to prevent the harm. Since scenario B does not present any intent to kill, killing the aggressor shouldn’t be done.

How do you interpret the Catechism?

 

[BenRosa]

How do you interpret the Catechism?

I interpret it as one having the right to defend themselves against someone trying to do them or their family bodily harm.

However, let me get more specific about scenario B. What is that someone breaking into your home is the State (read: government)? I don’t believe we are entitled to use lethal force to stop them. Aren’t we told to obey those in authority over us?

Is the scenario for possible martyrdom (if your capture results in eventual death)?

 

[thistle]

I interpret it as one having the right to defend themselves against someone trying to do them or their family bodily harm.

However, let me get more specific about scenario B. What is that someone breaking into your home is the State (read: government)? I don’t believe we are entitled to use lethal force to stop them. Aren’t we told to obey those in authority over us?

Is the scenario for possible martyrdom (if your capture results in eventual death)?

Why would the government be “breaking into” a house. Police or FBI would immediately identify themselves so you would know who they were.

 

[BenRosa]

Why would the government be “breaking into” a house. Police or FBI would immediately identify themselves so you would know who they were.

Understand. Let me adjust that scenario…the State has identified themselves and you are not letting them into you home, therefore, they must force their way into your home. Please know that this is not a slam against our police; in this scenario they are only following orders.

 

[jochoa]

Understand. Let me adjust that scenario…the State has identified themselves and you are not letting them into you home, therefore, they must force their way into your home. Please know that this is not a slam against our police; in this scenario they are only following orders.

In the scenario, in the USA, if the State has proper warrant information, then the Catholic Faith would obey the order of the warrant.