Luke 22:36 and swords

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Greektim, Jan 25, 2014.

  1. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    How do you take the advice of Jesus to buy a sword? Was he being figurative here or literal (or something else?)? Literal is hard to sustain b/c 2 swords for 11 men won't help much and later Jesus rebukes Peter using a sword. But I know our gun toting right wingers like to fall back on this passage for self-defense w/ a deadly weapon (which I am for btw).

    Luk 22:36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
    Luk 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
    Luk 22:38 And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

    PS-I think Jesus' words in v. 38 can just as easily mean "nevermind" to his overly-literal disciples. Considering v. 37's prediction, it seems a figurative meaning is best in the sense of being prepared for warfare... spiritual warfare and physical suffering. V. 38 then is the disciples demonstrating that they fail to recognize Jesus' point. Then you have the garden incident where Jesus rebukes them.
     
    #1 Greektim, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
  2. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    IMHO, I believe that the principal that Jesus was trying to emphasize in this passage was not really how many swords His disciples would need in this situation but rather to point out to them that His main goal at His first coming was NOT to establish a "politically-based" kingdom such as the Roman Empire.

    The kingdom that Jesus sought to establish at His first advent was primarily to be of a more "spiritually-based" kingdom.

    The reason for my interpretation of what Christ meant in Luke 22:36 stems from the idea that very few (if any) of the people who lived in Palestine when Jesus walked on this planet were more concerned with overthrowing their Roman captors in some sort of military and/or political insurrection than they were of establishing a "spiritual kingdom."

    Even the after Jesus arose from the dead, the statement found in Acts 1:6 seems to indicate that even the remaining apostles still thought that Christ's "kingdom goal" was more of a "political and/or military" one than a "spiritual" one.
     
  3. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Could swords be allegorical to the gospel? Hebrews 4:12 states the word is "sharper than any two-edged sword". In Ephesians 6, Paul speaks of "the whole armour of God", and includes a sword, which is the word, in our right hand. In Revelation 1, John described His word proceeding out of His mouth as a sword. Just my thoughts...
     
  4. Archie the Preacher

    Archie the Preacher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Machaira (G3162)

    I'm pretty sure He meant 'swords', as in devices with which to defend. Notice He also said 'money bag' and and knapsack. This is ALL in contrast to the prior time Jesus sent the disciples out to preach in the land of Judea.

    You'll recall on the prior occasion (Matthew 10) Jesus told them to take nothing with them. They would receive material support as needed from those to whom they preached.

    This was different. Jesus was going to be executed (and raised and ascended) shortly and the disciples and all the other followers were going to be on their own - at least in human terms. The Comforter would be with them, but they were warned they would have to pay their own way and be responsible for their own safety. A tradition that carries on to this day, I might add. When Jesus said they had 'enough' swords, he meant for the moment; they would be able to buy swords and other needed gear in the days to follow. That they had two among them indicates a couple at least were already armed.

    Peter was rebuked for unneeded violence, not for being armed. Jesus was at the place where He would be arrested. Jesus knew this, Peter did not. Jesus knew He was to be offered as the Ultimate Sacrifice for all mankind shortly. Peter did not. Peter gets a bad press for running away from the Garden that night. But consider; Peter had promised earlier not to forsake Jesus. When Peter saw the coming arrest posse, Peter moved into action that was reasonable under the circumstances - not being fully aware of all that was happening. It wasn't until Jesus stopped Peter did Peter run, not knowing what to do.
     
  5. Judith

    Judith
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    10
    Verse 35 gives a clue.
    And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

    The Lord is saying while I have been with you, you lacked nothing. Now I am going away and you will have to care for yourselves. So yes a weapon is proper to have for protection.
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    Think that you nailed it here, as they were about to enetr into a time of severepersucution/suffering, and he warned them against that, and to have preparation, but in todays vernacular, jesus would say to us:" Ok to buy and use a pistol, but no need for a machine gun!"
     
  7. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    But if Jesus and the Apostles lived in the USA in these days (at least in such places as Washington DC or Chicago or most any other major US city), they'd most likely be subjected to having their pistols registered by the local law enforcement agency(ies) [Imagine Jesus having to go through a background check. Or, for that matter, Judas Iscariot!!]. Plus they would probably have to have a "Concealed Carry" permit as well!

    But, OTOH, they probably wouldn't have to register any machine guns because the US Department of Justice would merely confiscate them and then put the machine guns for sale on eBay--Just like they did with the machine guns that were used to kill that US Border Patrol agent.
     
  8. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I seriously never see any place where we are told to defend ourselves so as not to suffer for the kingdom. In fact, we are encouraged to share in the suffering, not avoid it. I find the literal interpretation of taking up arms for self-defense to be at so much odds w/ the teachings of Jesus. You know, loving your enemies and turning the other cheek and all? Being persecuted is one of the blessings in the beatitudes for crying out loud!!!
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    think difference between suffering for sake of Christ, as in religious persecution, being rounded up to go to Gulags, from say , having Nazy ss troopers attacking your town, and killing of saved and unsaved alike! I would certainly shoot to kill in those circunstances if they came to my house!
     
  10. Archie the Preacher

    Archie the Preacher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, Yesh. And I suggest that in such a case, you would want a machinegun rather than a pistol.
     
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should that happen, and I can get into the cockpit of an Apache helicopter ...
     
  12. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    This is where I have gone in my head as well... I will protect my family. But if it is a matter of being persecuted for my faith, then I will willingly put my family in harms way for the sake of the gospel.

    Here is the difficulty, are you always going to know the difference in those situations? Or if you are protecting your family from burglars, and you "shoot to kill" in order to protect, is there really a difference then? Does loving your enemies strictly just for enemies of the gospel or enemies in general? How much of self defense is ingrained into us as Americans who have "fought for freedom" and so on? This is a personal struggle that I am and have been dealing with for a while. My daughter is now a year old. And I live in the most dangerous country in the world (violence per capita). But the danger is not Christian persecution per se. But how far do I go to protect my family and send someone to eternity? I don't know!

    Any helpful, biblical advice, anyone?
     
    #12 Greektim, Jan 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2014

Share This Page

Loading...