Why'd he have a sword?

[Mike Fraley]

Hey folks. I would simply just look this up in my commentaries if I hadn't just packed them up to move. But I've got some questions for you folks, and maybe you can be of some help. I was reflecting on the following passages on a commute:



Matthew 26:51 With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

Mark 14:47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)


Okay, it's pretty obvious that one of the people with Jesus was carrying a sword around. I know quite a bit about the sword's part in European and some Asian countries in various periods of history. They've played a role in either status or self defense (or both). If it is for self-defense, against what or whom?

My question is, what was the culture's perception of carrying a sword at the time, and why does a companion (or disciple) of a traveling rabbi need one (other than the obvious answer that he needed to cut the ear off of the servant of the high priest)?

Cultures have different perceptions of carrying weapons, and where no one would think much of me having a licensed firearm on my hip in Montana, it would be regarded much differently if I was a pistol-packin'-preacher in Cambridge, MA. I just have no concept of the cultural perceptions in Jesus' day, other than the use in the Roman military and gladiator arenas.

Can anyone be of any help?

[Bill Morrison]

I find your question interesting. I wonder if in Roman-occupied Jerusalem it would even be legal for a Jew to carry a sword. To me it is not only intriguing that Jesus allowed Peter to carry a sword when Jesus is so often portrayed as a pacifist, but why he would allow him to carry the sword if it was perhaps illegal. Help us, Bible scholars!

BILL

[Mike Fraley]

We would be making a pretty big assumption to say that they were necessarily illegal. We do not allow weapons to be carried by the general populace, but it does not necessarily follow that either the Roman or Judean government would have made swords illegal.

It is a thought that occurred to me that Jesus' tacit consent of weapons being carried by people raises questions. However, first we have to establish on whom or what the swords were meant to be used on. It is possible that traveling the countryside they might have seen it necessary to fend off the odd wild animal or two. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case (especially with a group as large as Jesus'), but the thought had occurred to me as a possibility.

We also know from another passage that there was at least one other sword in the group:



Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

Note that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that Jesus is necessarily literally advocating the buying of swords, but I make note of this only to point out that there were swords present in the group. Still, the question being, "for what specific purpose?"

[David Parker]

Personal weapons were legal. I have read that the swords in use at this time were 'Roman short swords' (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_gladius.html) They excelled as personal defense weapons. The modern day equivalent would be the handgun.

Christ made it clear that "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight” (John 18:36) we are not to fight to 'defend the faith', but defense of the innocent was never prohibited. Even in the garden when Christ healed the sword wound that Peter inflicted, He didn't tell Peter to throw away the sword, but to "put your sword back in its place". In other words: 'not here...not now', but 'not never'.

As you have pointed out, some of the disciples were armed, and as his ministry drew to a close, he even advised them "...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Here are a few articles on the subject from various perspectives:

Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword? (http://www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html) From Loveryourenemies.org

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT GUN CONTROL? (http://www.lawandliberty.org/defense.htm) From Lawandliberty.org

Resisting evil, self defense and war (http://www.letusreason.org/doct40.htm) From letusreason.org

The Bible and self-defense (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25442) From worldnetdaily

[Billie Goodson]

It is interesting if you read the account from Luke, chapter 22. This incident is in Luke 22:50. However, prior to this verse there appears back at Luke 22:36-37 this text:


And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

This is interesting in why would the disciples be in need of a sword?

What is really interesting is what occurs next in verses 37 & 38


For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Greg Boyd in his blog (http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-did-jesus-say-buy-sword.html)offers:


This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says "That is enough." (vs. 38). Obviously, if Jesus ever intended the disciples to actually use swords in self defense, two wouldn't be nearly enough. But it was enough to fulfill the prophecy and justify the Jewish authorities accusing him of being a rebel leader. (My thanks to my friend Tony Bartlett, author of Cross Purposes, for giving me this insight at a recent Atonement conference).


I also wonder if his profession as a fisherman had bearing in this? The word that is translated sword is "machaira". According to one dictionary, this can also be a large knife. It would seem extremely consistent that a fisherman would have a large knife that would be used for various tasks dealing with nets and fish. In that case, it would seem very likely that he would have one, and as we read back earlier in the Luke account, two of the disciples already had "swords".

[Mike Fraley]

Personal weapons were legal. I have read that the swords in use at this time were 'Roman short swords' (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_gladius.html) They excelled as personal defense weapons. The modern day equivalent would be the handgun.

I'm not sure that we can jump to the assumption that these were the same as the Roman short swords. I don't doubt that these would fall into the modern classification of "short sword" (though at the time they didn't much delineate between long swords, short swords, etc. The Roman short sword was generally used as a stabbing weapon, and much less frequently as a cleaving weapon.

There is the potential that he was using something closer to the Bar-Kochba, which would have been a considerably less balanced, harder to handle, cleaving weapon:

http://yfrog.com/g1attachmentcj

If the Roman short sword would be the handgun, this would have been a front-loading single-shot flintlock by comparison. :)

Again, I'm not maintaining that it is necessarily one, the other, or possibly another variety of sword I do not know about off hand. I merely mean to say that there are other possibilities.

[Mike Fraley]

Here are a few articles on the subject from various perspectives:

Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword? (http://www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html) From Loveryourenemies.org

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT GUN CONTROL? (http://www.lawandliberty.org/defense.htm) From Lawandliberty.org

Resisting evil, self defense and war (http://www.letusreason.org/doct40.htm) From letusreason.org

The Bible and self-defense (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25442) From worldnetdaily

I've been looking at the articles, and they certainly do make reference to biblical texts, however I'm also wondering what we can know from archaeological and extra-biblical texts about the role of personal weapons. I can find information about personal weapons in Rome from about 390 B.C., though that puts us a long way off from the professional occupying forces of Jesus' day.

[David Parker]

Again, I'm not maintaining that it is necessarily one, the other, or possibly another variety of sword I do not know about off hand. I merely mean to say that there are other possibilities.

Interesting. Of course, whatever kind of sword it was, it was long enough to slice off an ear in the garden despite armed opponents being present.

Here was the Roman equipment of the day, a sword and a dagger (http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-cingulum.html#First%20Century%20Cingulum).

[Mike Fraley]

Interesting. Of course, whatever kind of sword it was, it was long enough to slice off an ear in the garden despite armed opponents being present.

Here was the Roman equipment of the day, a sword and a dagger (http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-cingulum.html#First%20Century%20Cingulum).

Indeed. I'm pretty familiar with Roman military equipment. But we can't focus too much on that, as we make several assumptions. Also, let's not forget Billie Goodson's contribution:


I also wonder if his profession as a fisherman had bearing in this? The word that is translated sword is "machaira". According to one dictionary, this can also be a large knife. It would seem extremely consistent that a fisherman would have a large knife that would be used for various tasks dealing with nets and fish. In that case, it would seem very likely that he would have one, and as we read back earlier in the Luke account, two of the disciples already had "swords".

The machaira is a class of blade that can be either a work tool or a weapon. It covers a broad range of implements, and is not nearly so specific a word as a gladius. Here are a few examples:

http://s3.postimage.org/imtc0.jpg

http://yfrog.com/4xdownloadej

http://yfrog.com/jqdownloadzvj

http://kovarina.webz.cz/foto/me1-7.jpg

This is more likely to produce the hack that would take off an ear than a properly used pierce of a Roman gladius. It also explains why fishermen would be carrying one. I've taken a machete into the woods in more than one occasion, and that likewise is something that can be either tool or weapon.

[Shea Zellweger]

Billie beat me to it, but it appears to me that the author of Luke makes it pretty clear that the swords were needed in order to fulfill the prophecy.

[Billie Goodson]

Billie beat me to it, but it appears to me that the author of Luke makes it pretty clear that the swords were needed in order to fulfill the prophecy.

I read what Boyd wrote and I read the verses. We tend to draw the connection between the two verses and I don't know that it is not what the author intended, or was he simply making a broader observation. This goes to how I view the prophecies. It seems odd that with Boyd's view, he raises this solution to the verses. That may have more to do with my reading than his writing.

It almost seems like I can picture Christ with this little checklist on his iRock that has all that is needed for the prophecy. There he is checking it, then goes, "Oops, hey anyone got a sword" while thinking to himself, "We are going to need that in a few hours." When he is assured they have not one but two (I guess in case one of the disciples accidentally fell asleep or something) he can check that item off and move on to the next page....

I just wonder if they would not have had a sword, or able to get one, then the prophecy would have never been.... kind of a back to the future thing going on in my mind with prophecy... I don't think prophecy limits God, but He sure limited it.

[Ryan Scott]

Well we know the disciples left everything to follow Jesus and we know Peter had a mother in law, because Jesus healed her. Could it be that one of the disciples who left a wife and family had a father in law or a brother in law who wasn't too happy about it and this disciple carried a sword around in case he came looking for him?

It doesn't even have to be a family relation. I've reflected on Judas a number of times and what it would have taken to betray Jesus and I'm fairly convinced it could have been any of them. I imagine the local authorities were riding the disciples and their families pretty hard to get them to give up Jesus. I don't believe Judas just took off and offered to betray Jesus without having already known the offer was out there.

I can believe it was a pretty dangerous time for them (maybe evidenced by the few swords produced earlier when Jesus spoke of a sword?)

[Andy Mistak]

Well we know the disciples left everything to follow Jesus and we know Peter had a mother in law, because Jesus healed her. Could it be that one of the disciples who left a wife and family had a father in law or a brother in law who wasn't too happy about it and this disciple carried a sword around in case he came looking for him?

It doesn't even have to be a family relation. I've reflected on Judas a number of times and what it would have taken to betray Jesus and I'm fairly convinced it could have been any of them. I imagine the local authorities were riding the disciples and their families pretty hard to get them to give up Jesus. I don't believe Judas just took off and offered to betray Jesus without having already known the offer was out there.

I can believe it was a pretty dangerous time for them (maybe evidenced by the few swords produced earlier when Jesus spoke of a sword?)

Weren't a couple of the disciples zealots (and therefore apt to be armed and at the ready for an uprising)?

[David Parker]

Were there separate words in usage for 'sword' and 'knife'?

[Benjamin Burch]

Christ made it clear that "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight” (John 18:36) we are not to fight to 'defend the faith', but defense of the innocent was never prohibited.

I'm not sure about this. John's Gospel continuously and continually pits the Johannine Community against the "world" throughout the text. In John's Gospel location is somewhat involved, but that's a very complex issue. What's more clear is the fact that more than location, it has to do with substance. That is, Jesus' followers, the Johannine Community, are not of/from the world. The World is another entity within Johannine "dualism" where they are distorted and at odds with Christ/God. However, this realm (the world) is also, despite its distortedness and even opposition to Christ/God, is the very realm into which the Logos has entered because it is loved by God.

Before we get to 18, Jesus prays for his disciples in 17 and acknowledges that they were given to him by the Father "from the world" or, out of it. They have a new identity in Christ (as the Johannine community has its identity in Christ, in their sectarian community) and are no longer "of the world."

Thus, it is not to say that "Jesus' kingdom is elsewhere, but if it were here he'd want us to fight." That doesn't seem to make sense given the context. Instead, Jesus is saying that his Kingdom is different from the Kingdoms of the world. If Jesus' Kingdom were "from this world" and like those, his disciples would fight. But, since his kingdom is utterly and completely different, it is evidenced by the fact that his disciples do not fight and are not fighting." This is part of the reason why Jesus' rebuke of Peter even makes sense. Jesus' Kingdom works a different way than the kingdoms of the world. This is how we know it is not the same as the Kingdoms of the world.

So, I don't think the reading you offered (a very common one) takes into account the dense and intentional use of vocabulary by the Johannine Author.



Even in the garden when Christ healed the sword wound that Peter inflicted, He didn't tell Peter to throw away the sword, but to "put your sword back in its place". In other words: 'not here...not now', but 'not never'.

Again, I'm not sure about this. Out of 4 Gospels (all of which contain this story - so maybe it's important!):

Luke - Jesus heals the damage done by human violence

John - Jesus commands Peter to put the sword back and then says that his disciples don't fight because they're different

Matthew - Jesus is very harsh, condemning the use of the sword in general

Mark - Nothing is stated in the negative, but the Gospel has a very pacifistic and martryological theme to it throughout...

So it doesn't seem to offer much support for "some other time." Two out of 4 are quite clear that it's not okay at all (Luke/Matthew) while another seems to make the point later in the same chapter (John).



As you have pointed out, some of the disciples were armed, and as his ministry drew to a close, he even advised them "...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

This is very hard to make out any sense for the exhortation. It seems to serve only to fulfill the prophecy, seeing as how just moments later Jesus rebukes the use of the sword and heals the damage caused. (and defending Jesus is in fact defending the innocent, the oppressed, the one suffering on account of human violence/sin/evil).

While we might be able to make logical and sound arguments for why it makes the most sense for a secular government to allow its citizens to protect themselves and carry weapons. I don't think we can ask the Bible to speak to that, much less support it. The Bible speaks to who we are to be as a people. A people called out from the world and who, instead of following "logic"... follow the Christ and his Cross - foolishness to the Greeks (philosophers, logicians).

[Kazimiera Fraley]

I'm deleting the content of this message, since I am accidentally logged in on my wife's account.

- Mike Fraley

[Mike Fraley]

Were there separate words in usage for 'sword' and 'knife'?

It seems that a machaira (which was the word the Gospels used) could be either a large knife or a shortish sword. You have to understand that in those days they didn't have a an absolute length at which a blade ceased being one and started being the other. Also, if this is like other periods of history, when you're dealing with civilian implements/weapons there isn't an extreme amount of uniformity among what would be carried. There are many cultures that used their tools as weapons when the time came.

I don't see what it would be unreasonable for a blade of 9-16 inches to be used for practical matters, but also to have enough heft to hack off an ear (or do more damage to a neck or head if a strike hit its mark). But of course, this is based on several assumptions.

[Steven Burton]

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machaira are we using this word or this word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhaira

It seems to me that we need to clarify the right word for the purposes of the discussion since there seems to be a great deal of symbolism in machaira.

[Mike Fraley]

I packed my Greek New Testament. So, that would be a helpful thing to find out. I was assuming that Billie's source was accurate, though I have not verified that myself.

[David Graham]

Interesting. Of course, whatever kind of sword it was, it was long enough to slice off an ear in the garden despite armed opponents being present.

Here was the Roman equipment of the day, a sword and a dagger (http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-cingulum.html#First%20Century%20Cingulum).

I am of the opinion that the "sword" Peter wielded was more of a large knife, and that he wasn't particularly skilled at using it as a weapon, since who on earth would deliberately "aim" at cutting off an apponant's ear? No, Peter, filled with adrenaline and "good intentions" to defend his Lord, aimed at the servant's head, and either by having his blow deflected, or by the servant ducking sideways to avoid the blow, Peter only succeeded in cutting off his ear. I would like to think that perhaps Jesus himself "pushed" Peter's arm away as he wielded his Knife, in order to prevent Peter from committing "murder". Knowing how remorsful Peter was at the betrayal of his Lord, Peter's remorse at killing another human being may have lead him to harm himself between the time of Jesus death and his resurrection.......... all speculation of course.

[Larry Parsons]

Hey folks. I would simply just look this up in my commentaries if I hadn't just packed them up to move. But I've got some questions for you folks, and maybe you can be of some help. I was reflecting on the following passages on a commute:



Okay, it's pretty obvious that one of the people with Jesus was carrying a sword around. I know quite a bit about the sword's part in European and some Asian countries in various periods of history. They've played a role in either status or self defense (or both). If it is for self-defense, against what or whom?

My question is, what was the culture's perception of carrying a sword at the time, and why does a companion (or disciple) of a traveling rabbi need one (other than the obvious answer that he needed to cut the ear off of the servant of the high priest)?

Cultures have different perceptions of carrying weapons, and where no one would think much of me having a licensed firearm on my hip in Montana, it would be regarded much differently if I was a pistol-packin'-preacher in Cambridge, MA. I just have no concept of the cultural perceptions in Jesus' day, other than the use in the Roman military and gladiator arenas.

Can anyone be of any help?
Doing this time peroid of Judea it was like wild west it was infested with outlaws and cut-throats and it was plain stupid to go unarmed. And Peter probably carried one for his personal safety. I knew one Nazarene pastor who would have two guns on him at camp meeting and folks never know when you would have shootout at campmeeting Ha. My own pastor when I was teen, would carry in his car 12 gauge double barrel nickle plated pearl handle saw off shot gun I guess american wasn't to safe for Nazarene pastor in some area. And this was problem true during the 1st century.
Thanks
Larry P.

[Shea Zellweger]

Doing this time peroid of Judea it was like wild west it was infested with outlaws and cut-throats and it was plain stupid to go unarmed.

Do you have any basis for this statement? Far as I can tell, Jesus was operating in the middle of the Pax Romana, which was a far cry from the "wild West." It was a period marked by peace and civil order. Just a short while earlier, Jesus had challenged his disciples to supply swords, and among the lot of them they had only two, meaning that even if the people here are only the 12 (and the context is unclear), at least 9 of them (not counting Judas) were going unarmed. Should I infer from your claim that most of Jesus' disciples were "plain stupid"?

[Larry Parsons]

Do you have any basis for this statement? Far as I can tell, Jesus was operating in the middle of the Pax Romana, which was a far cry from the "wild West." It was a period marked by peace and civil order. Just a short while earlier, Jesus had challenged his disciples to supply swords, and among the lot of them they had only two, meaning that even if the people here are only the 12 (and the context is unclear), at least 9 of them (not counting Judas) were going unarmed. Should I infer from your claim that most of Jesus' disciples were "plain stupid"?

Shea, you are right, Jesus was operating during the time of the peace throughout Roman empire. But that doesn't mean that Judea was not infested with outlaws that was ready to rob people when they got chance. Under Roman rule the robbers was so troublesome that they actually put garrisons along the road to protect the travelers. But doing that did help everyone from from being rob. Jesus tell the story about man who was rob while on the Jericho road. In the Gospel of Luke Jesus told his disciple to sell some of thier clothes and go buy a sword, but guess what they already had two sword among themselve and Jesus told them that was a enough.Now I gather from this, Jesus may have thought that his disciples could use couple of swords if they were attacked by wild anmials and to intimidate wicked men from robbing them as they travel preacher the gospel, No I was not saying that the disciples were stupid In fact would say they were smart group of men.

Thanks

Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, you are right, Jesus was operating during the time of the peace throughout Roman empire. But that doesn't mean that Judea was not infested with outlaws that was ready to rob people when they got chance. Under Roman rule the robbers was so troublesome that they actually put garrisons along the road to protect the travelers. But doing that did help everyone from from being rob. Jesus tell the story about man who was rob while on the Jericho road. In the Gospel of Luke Jesus told his disciple to sell some of thier clothes and go buy a sword, but guess what they already had two sword among themselve and Jesus told them that was a enough.Now I gather from this, Jesus may have thought that his disciples could use couple of swords if they were attacked by wild anmials and to intimidate wicked men from robbing them as they travel preacher the gospel, No I was not saying that the disciples were stupid In fact would say they were smart group of men.

Thanks

Larry

I've already stated on this thread my own views on why the disciples needed swords- specifically, to fulfill the prophecy. Unless the Disciples were only to be going out in 2 groups, 2 swords would not have been enough for the reasons you stated.

[Larry Parsons]

I've already stated on this thread my own views on why the disciples needed swords- specifically, to fulfill the prophecy. Unless the Disciples were only to be going out in 2 groups, 2 swords would not have been enough for the reasons you stated.
Shea, the disciples wasn't going out to make war if they were they would all being carrrie weopon of all kind. Yet Jesus must hav thought that two sword among them was enough to keep robbers away when they were traveling. Why wouldn't two sword be enough to intimidate the robber. If they were every attacted which never happen as far we know. If they were I don't think the other ten would be siting around and watch Peter and the other disciple do all the fighting for them. When I was school I was told the best defence was pair of tennis shoe until you had to fight. in other word it would be on a rare occiation (sp) Here the question Why would they need swords that Old Testement prophecy of Jesus may be fulfill?
Thanks
Larry

[Billie Goodson]

Shea, the disciples wasn't going out to make war if they were they would all being carrrie weopon of all kind. Yet Jesus must hav thought that two sword among them was enough to keep robbers away when they were traveling. Why wouldn't two sword be enough to intimidate the robber. If they were every attacted which never happen as far we know. If they were I don't think the other ten would be siting around and watch Peter and the other disciple do all the fighting for them. When I was school I was told the best defence was pair of tennis shoe until you had to fight. in other word it would be on a rare occiation (sp)

An issue with this line of reasoning is that he asked the question so close to the time of his capture. If we attribute some sense that Jesus knew what was going to happen, then would he have not known that the disciples would scatter when he was arrested? Hardly seems two swords would have been sufficient if he possessed that knowledge and wanted them to protect themselves. Based on the timing, he also did that once they were in Jerusalem. It would have made more sense to have a weapons check prior to their travel through the countryside where they may have been more likely to encounter people bent on lawlessness.

Just some difficulties in the line of reasoning.


Here the question Why would they need swords that Old Testement prophecy of Jesus may be fulfill?
Thanks
Larry

The simple act of fulfilling the prophecy alone would have been enough if one thinks that God must conform to the prophecy. I actually am hoping that Shea and Boyd's responses are a little bit more nuanced than that, but in it's simplest expression, I think they are right. I think Boyd also suggested that just their having some weapons was enough for the Sanhedrin to lay a claim at their feet that they were insurrectionists thereby at odds with Rome. If this was a present day story, the Sanhedrin might have just brought along a few weapons to plant on the disciples...

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Maybe "why" misses the point. Maybe it's just the way it was. Jesus asked if anyone had sword and Peter did.

Since we're talking about real life here and not a play in which each detail has been written in by the writer, there may be no meaning intended or implied. Some people carried swords and Peter was one of them. Maybe it was his grandfather's sword and he carried it in memory of him. Maybe he carried it for cleaning larger fish.

To me, the take away is that Jesus wanted to be sure someone in his party had a sword and Peter happened to have one.

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, the disciples wasn't going out to make war if they were they would all being carrrie weopon of all kind. Yet Jesus must hav thought that two sword among them was enough to keep robbers away when they were traveling. Why wouldn't two sword be enough to intimidate the robber.

Because the Disciples did not travel as a single group. They were initially sent out in pairs (Luke 9), and later on traveled in small groups of two or three, with some members of the traveling parties not being part of the original 12. Two swords would not have been enough to fend off robbers because only two of the groups would have been able to have swords, while the rest would have been defenseless. Also, Robbers usually attacked in groups, so two swords would not have been enough even if they were all traveling together


Here the question Why would they need swords that Old Testement prophecy of Jesus may be fulfill?

" He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”"
-Luke 22:36-37.
This is one single statement from Jesus. Seems to me that Jesus himself thought that the swords were necessary in order to be 'numbered with the transgressors"... or at least that's how Luke is telling the story.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I am uncomfortable with the rationale for carrying a sword was for protection from thieves and highwaymen, although this could well have been in the minds of the two who were carrying the swords, I doubt it was Jesus intention. Luke 6:29, "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.", He also instructs us not to resist evil.

From Broken Bread by Jay McCarl, Biblical Dinners Publishing, Greenwood, CA 2009 pp 172-3,

"Now, about that sword at the Last Supper: John would most certainly have had a sword with him at the feast because tradition demanded that the man who was assigned the honor of being the bodyguard possess one. But what is more interesting is that someone else brought a second sword to the great supper."

McCarl then goes on with the mention of the Luke passage of Jesus telling them to obtain a sword and their response of, "We have 2 swords." McCarl suggests that Jesus was not speaking literally, but does not say why he holds this opinion, and that the disciples missed the point as they so often have before and will again as the narrative of the road to Emaus testifies.

He continues, "The question is, who brought the other sword, and why?

"It is only a guess, but the possibility is quite obvious when you think about it. At the conclusion of the Feast Jesus led His weary followers out of the room and across the Kidron Valley into a quiet, moonlit olive grove to pray. Instead the exhausted disciples fell asleep. It was late, and the round moon stood almost directly overhead when Peter was jolted out of a deep sleep by Jesus commanding him to get up. Cruel noises and harsh whispers filled the shadows, and grim faces could be glimpsed in the pulsing flames of burning torches that now encircled them. All was confusion.

"'Look it's Judas! Peter may have thought. 'Wait, what is he doing? Why is he greeting the Master like that? Who are the men with him? Ah! What are they doing? They are attacking Him! I must do something! And he pulled out a sword and began swinging, helplessly trying to protect his Master.

"Peter may have been the man with the other sword at the Last Supper, because there in the Garden of Gethsemane he became the disciple who ended up protecting the host [Jesus, the host of the meal]. This might also be a clue as to where Peter hoped to sit at the table that night....."

Now Jay goes around the world putting on a reenactment of the Last Supper. While he writes as he speaks, with a flair for the dramatic, he is well informed as to the traditions surrounding the meal (a very good presentation, we had him this past Maundy Thursday for our congregation to participate in this reenactment, which brings this to life like nothing else) including artifacts from archeological digs from 1st century Judea.

But then I think, "The disciples, those who remained after the event in John 6:22-71, were a rag tag bunch of commercial fishermen, Zealots, two Jesus named the sons of thunder. Why were there so few swords after the Last Supper?"

[Billie Goodson]

Luke 6:29, "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic."

Jesus didn't believe what he said? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when he was struck during the trial? No, he questioned the one who struck him. Sometimes the concept and the practice don't mesh. Usually, it is because we want to broad an application of the concept (that is what I attribute to Jesus, since I expect his actions to be primary). See John 18:22-23

[Bill Morrison]

Jesus didn't believe what he said. Did Jesus turn the other cheek when he was struck during the trial? No, he questioned the one who struck him. Sometimes the concept and the practice don't mesh. Usually, it is because we want to broad an application of the concept (that is what I attribute to Jesus, since I expect his actions to be primary).

I don't quite get what you are saying here. Jesus could have had them all struck dead when they hit him. To me it seems obvious that instead he "turned the other cheek" in the sense I would understand the phrase.

BILL

[Billie Goodson]

I don't quite get what you are saying here. Jesus could have had them all struck dead when they hit him. To me it seems obvious that instead he "turned the other cheek" in the sense I would understand the phrase.

BILL

That could be an interpretation. I actually think your explanation could be a good one if we want to reconcile the scriptures with a literal reading, but it seems that Christ did not do a "turn the other to him also". We could make it figurative, but then if someone strikes me on the cheek would it be ok if I just shot him to wound him, electing not to shoot him to kill him? Would that be a good implementation of the scripture?

[Hans Deventer]

That could be an interpretation. I actually think your explanation could be a good one if we want to reconcile the scriptures with a literal reading, but it seems that Christ did not do a "turn the other to him also". We could make it figurative, but then if someone strikes me on the cheek would it be ok if I just shot him to wound him, electing not to shoot him to kill him? Would that be a good implementation of the scripture?

Seems to me “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” would be a better implementation.

[Billie Goodson]

Seems to me “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” would be a better implementation.

Actually, I think he went further than that. But, it may all just be a good story.

[Benjamin Burch]

That could be an interpretation. I actually think your explanation could be a good one if we want to reconcile the scriptures with a literal reading, but it seems that Christ did not do a "turn the other to him also". We could make it figurative, but then if someone strikes me on the cheek would it be ok if I just shot him to wound him, electing not to shoot him to kill him? Would that be a good implementation of the scripture?

Is carrying his own cross to golgatha and letting them kill him not qualify as turning the other cheek? It would seem he turned more than just his cheek.

[Billie Goodson]

Is carrying his own cross to golgatha and letting them kill him not qualify as turning the other cheek? It would seem he turned more than just his cheek.

No, I would say it does not. I guess in the universal sense it would apply, but then in the universal sense, anything short of full and immediate annihilation would apply as well.

I think this would be useful though the next time a pacifist wants to use these verses.

[Benjamin Burch]

No, I would say it does not. I guess in the universal sense it would apply, but then in the universal sense, anything short of full and immediate annihilation would apply as well.

I think this would be useful though the next time a pacifist wants to use these verses.

I simply am not even able to mentally understand or follow this. Carrying your own cross to your own death as a willing sufferer does not count as the ultimate fulfillment of Jesus' teaching? I literally cannot follow that.

[Hans Deventer]

I simply am not even able to mentally understand or follow this. Carrying your own cross to your own death as a willing sufferer does not count as the ultimate fulfillment of Jesus' teaching? I literally cannot follow that.

Thanks. I felt like I was the only one who had no clue what this was about. Billie, you really need to try again.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

No, I would say it does not. I guess in the universal sense it would apply, but then in the universal sense, anything short of full and immediate annihilation would apply as well.

I think this would be useful though the next time a pacifist wants to use these verses.

I don't think I understand here, Billie. Jesus asked a few simple questions, then allowed them to beat him almost to death, then carried his own cross so that they could more conveniently kill him in the most painful and humiliating way they could imagine. I'm missing the part where this doesn't count as turning the other cheek to a greater extent than shooting "to wound him, electing not to shoot him to kill him" or even "anything short of full and immediate annihilation." Can you explain your statements for me?

[Billie Goodson]

Thanks. I felt like I was the only one who had no clue what this was about. Billie, you really need to try again.

Hans, I am going to take a lesson from you. I think I have no hope of convincing you or Ben of my point. I think it best to just drop out of this conversation. I am convinced that our views of scripture are pretty radically different. That is not a bad thing, but I think I am consigned to that point.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I am going to take a lesson from you. I think I have no hope of convincing you or Ben of my point. I think it best to just drop out of this conversation. I am convinced that our views of scripture are pretty radically different. That is not a bad thing, but I think I am consigned to that point.

You're of course free do come or go as you please. I just didn't get what you were saying in the last post, so I hadn't arrived yet at the point where I saw disagreement.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Jesus didn't believe what he said? Did Jesus turn the other cheek when he was struck during the trial? No, he questioned the one who struck him. Sometimes the concept and the practice don't mesh. Usually, it is because we want to broad an application of the concept (that is what I attribute to Jesus, since I expect his actions to be primary). See John 18:22-23

Maybe I missed it but I don't see Jesus putting on a defense of any kind. I do not see resistance in Jesus question of the guard or is it to the Sanhedrin that the question was addressed? If that is the case He did, indeed, turn the other cheek and did not resist them and their false charges and their murder of Him. Jesus lived what He taught.

Matthew 27:14 "14But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed."

Mark 15:1-5, "As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. 2Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ He answered him, ‘You say so.’ 3Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4Pilate asked him again, ‘Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.’ 5But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed."

Luke 23:9 "9He questioned him at some length, but Jesus* gave him no answer."

Even in John Jesus only answers that His kingdom is not of this world. Later when questioned as to the exact charges Jesus remains mute as prophesied in Isaiah 53:7.

Mounting no defense, either physical or verbal is to "resist not evil." Turning the other cheek is to not resist evil. Jesus lived this.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Hans, I am going to take a lesson from you. I think I have no hope of convincing you or Ben of my point. I think it best to just drop out of this conversation. I am convinced that our views of scripture are pretty radically different. That is not a bad thing, but I think I am consigned to that point.

I applaud your approach here and wish more people more often (including myself here) took this route. The purpose of discussion on a forum like this isn't to convince as much as it is to exchange views. At the end of the day, if I've expressed myself the best I know how and been willing to hear other points of view in a fair way, I've participated in a successful discussion.

One of my rules of thumb is that when I find myself repeating myself it's a sure sign I need to gracefully withdraw from the exchange. Generally, when I do that, I have to accept the fact that others aren't where I am and that they may take a few parting shots, or want to engage me farther, or continue the discussion without me, or at least know that I've just yielded to them the last word on the subject.

I'm not wise enough to do it, but more than once I've wished I could enter exchanges here as a leader and help people gracefully conclude a discussion that has no chance of drawing to a conclusion otherwise. Perhaps your approach will serve as a positive reminder to all of us.

[Glenda Harvey]

Personal weapons were legal. I have read that the swords in use at this time were 'Roman short swords' (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_gladius.html) They excelled as personal defense weapons. The modern day equivalent would be the handgun.

Christ made it clear that "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight” (John 18:36) we are not to fight to 'defend the faith', but defense of the innocent was never prohibited. Even in the garden when Christ healed the sword wound that Peter inflicted, He didn't tell Peter to throw away the sword, but to "put your sword back in its place". In other words: 'not here...not now', but 'not never'.

As you have pointed out, some of the disciples were armed, and as his ministry drew to a close, he even advised them "...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Here are a few articles on the subject from various perspectives:

Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword? (http://www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html) From Loveryourenemies.org

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT GUN CONTROL? (http://www.lawandliberty.org/defense.htm) From Lawandliberty.org

Resisting evil, self defense and war (http://www.letusreason.org/doct40.htm) From letusreason.org

The Bible and self-defense (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25442) From worldnetdaily

I don't see gun control, whether you believe in it or not as a biblical issue. There are Christians in favor of gun control and Christians against gun control. It comes down to what people see as being the more dangerous option.

[Larry Parsons]

An issue with this line of reasoning is that he asked the question so close to the time of his capture. If we attribute some sense that Jesus knew what was going to happen, then would he have not known that the disciples would scatter when he was arrested? Hardly seems two swords would have been sufficient if he possessed that knowledge and wanted them to protect themselves. Based on the timing, he also did that once they were in Jerusalem. It would have made more sense to have a weapons check prior to their travel through the countryside where they may have been more likely to encounter people bent on lawlessness.

Just some difficulties in the line of reasoning.



The simple act of fulfilling the prophecy alone would have been enough if one thinks that God must conform to the prophecy. I actually am hoping that Shea and Boyd's responses are a little bit more nuanced than that, but in it's simplest expression, I think they are right. I think Boyd also suggested that just their having some weapons was enough for the Sanhedrin to lay a claim at their feet that they were insurrectionists thereby at odds with Rome. If this was a present day story, the Sanhedrin might have just brought along a few weapons to plant on the disciples...
Billie, When the disciples were with Jesus he would only send them out to a short distance and they were pretty safe after pentecost they would travel among the gentile nation were became more dangerous.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Billie, When the disciples were with Jesus he would only send them out to a short distance and they were pretty safe after pentecost they would travel among the gentile nation were became more dangerous.
Thanks
Larry

yea... and they traveled in more than two groups. How were 2 swords enough to defend them if multiple groups would be traveling without swords?

[Larry Parsons]

yea... and they traveled in more than two groups. How were 2 swords enough to defend them if multiple groups would be traveling without swords?


Shea, I'm maybe changing my view here. And lets say that Lk,22:38 shouldn't be taken literally. (I'm not saying that the disciple didn't have two swords among themselves) It was a common custom for a Galilee men to carry a sword with them when they travel long distance away from home to defend themselves against robbers and assassins.Even John wesley believe this But could it be possible that Jesus was using the word sword as symbol of extreme danger that the disciples would face in the next few years. Remember Jesus told them that they would be hated.on the account of His name. First there were the Jews that hated Jesus and His disciples and that hatred last for forty years until they all perish .in AD 70. Of course the Roman Empire also begin to hated the Christians.after they were blame for the great Roman fire that took place in AD 64.
You may want to google or yahoo- pacifism and the sword in the gospel
and www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html
Thanks
Larry