Jesus how many swords

Most commentaries, on the other hand, reject this interpretation see below , because it is extremely difficult to reconcile with what Jesus consistently teaches non-retaliation and models willing self-sacrifice. He did not intend to be taken in this crudely literal fashion, and he was not encouraging violent resistance. If Jesus was not advocating violent resistance in telling the disciples to acquire a sword, what exactly was he saying?

Here are a few of the more well-known examples:. Did Jesus really expect his followers to dismember themselves to prevent sin? None of them ever did, to our knowledge. Or did he mean that they should take every reasonable measure possible to avoid sin? Luke Did Jesus really mean that his followers could move actual mountains—tons of earth and granite—with faith?

What other reason might Jesus have had for making his disciples bring swords? To fulfill prophecy as well as to further force the hand of the authorities, if necessary, Jesus and his band of disciples had to appear to be criminals.

More specifically, they had to appear like a typical band of sword wielding zealots, thus justifying the arrest and eventual execution of their leader. If Jesus expected his disciples to actually engage in sword fighting, two swords would obviously be completely inadequate. But for the mere purpose of appearing to be a band of lawbreaking zealots, two swords would suffice.

In light of this, it seems to me that justifying the use of violence by citing this passage is as unwarranted as citing the temple cleansing passage to this effect.

As MennoNerds, we all have found certain distinctives of Anabaptism to be central in our expression of faith. To find all the other articles in the Mennonerds on Anabaptism synchro blog click here. The disciples answered that there were two swords there. The Lord said that it was enough. But in Matthew the Lord told the disciples not to use a sword. Is there any contradiction in these two portions of the Bible?

How can one interpret Luke 22 which says that it was enough to have two swords. Please explain to me in detail. Hsu, Kwangtung. Answer: This question is one that Christians understand the least.

We can examine and investigate it in detail. The passage where the Lord Jesus commanded the disciples to buy swords is recorded in Luke This passage of the Bible has two problems that we must first resolve before we can begin to examine and investigate it. Verse 36 says, "Let him who has a purse take it, likewise also a bag; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. If the sword signifies something, then the purse must also signify something, and so must the bag.

If the purse is the purse and the bag is the bag, then the sword must also be the sword. We cannot say that the two swords refer to the New and the Old Testaments, or to the two robbers, or to any other things. A sword is a sword; we cannot interpret it in a spiritual sense.

How unfair it is if every time we come across a difficult verse that we do not understand, we try to interpret it in a spiritual sense! There are three reasons: a There were eleven disciples besides Judas. If the Lord Jesus were to ask them to solve the problem by force, how could two swords be enough for eleven people? When the disciples said that there were two swords, the Lord Jesus stopped and did not say anything more.

He did not ask them to buy nine more, which shows that it was not His original intention to buy swords and use force. Nevertheless, the Lord Jesus opposed him, saying, "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword" Matt. I will tell you this history shows in Acts, and also with Constantine AD. They did not and I repeat they did not use any carnal weapons whatsoever to protect themselves and there is no evidence of that ever happening.

So when Jesus said you know not what Spirit you are to Peter after he was tempted and Jesus says pray with me three times before he gave up they did not pray with him they went to sleep and Jesus shows that he was not tempted he suffered unto death.

He could have easily call down a legion of angels, his doctrines which are his teachings are true if a man strike you on One Cheek or from the other. Do you see him telling anyone to use a weapon?

Peter and Silas did no harm to that jailer before or after he was set free by the Angels. They went to his house and his whole family was saved this is a calling it's a high calling it's a price for those that God chooses to allow to be witnesses to die, our calling never ever will change God is the same today tomorrow and forever! I say this with all humility before our Lord and savior that died for our salvation. We are to pick up our cross die daily and follow his teachings. This is what he said, "make men disciples" no 'protecting your flesh.

Tom R I understand the pacifist's stand in this life. We don't have to look any further back in man's history than WWII and France to see how that principle worked out. Of course there are many more real world examples, but I believe that will suffice for now. But to say God does not condone violence is to ignore the rest of the Bible and is cherry picking, in my opinion. For whatever justification used now or then it is, what it is.

It's violence in the extreme and would be considered a crime against humanity by man's standards. But, man holds man to a higher standard than their own God. Case 2: Numbers God commands the killing of a person picking up sticks on the Sabbath. We can cherry pick the Bible all we want to make ourselves feel better about our situation, or to make a point. But to say God does not condone violence is being blind to reality. Sandra Plate The most consistent reading of the text would be where Jesus is speaking in hyperbole as he often did to illustrate a situation.

He says that he sent them out before in a certain manner and it was a good experience for them. He is now saying that they will go out in the future to an entirely different atmosphere. He is not advocating self-defense nor violence.

He is speaking metaphorically. They will have great need and there will be fierce opposition. His latter statement to Peter to put the sword away and "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" is the rebuttal to the literal interpretation of his previous words. Although less clear, when he says "that's enough," I fully imagine him extending great patience that once again, they are not understanding his words.

Imagine today someone saying this and eye-rolling, "Oh, yeah, that's enough for what's about to happen. Good going. Ric Shannon I believe that in Luke that Jesus meant exactly what he said.

I do NOT agree with any ideas of allegories or symbolism or even parables. I believe we are to be ready to fight with Him when He returns. Like Peter, take an ear or more.