PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Does Luke 22:36 mean a literal sword?



SirToady
Nov 7th 2013, 01:48 AM
Luke 22:
35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36. 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.
37. 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.

However,

Hebrews 4:
12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

And

Ephesians 6:
16. Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:


I have read several commentaries regarding this and have yet to reconcile how do you sell garments for the word of God? I cannot accept that Christ meant a literal sword, yet it appears he meant literal purse and script.

Bro Berryl
Nov 7th 2013, 03:37 AM
Why do you find it difficult to believe the apostles would need a real sword? I looked at the context in Matthew's account and came away with this understanding.

It is the night of Jesus' betrayal, he and his disciples go to the Mount of Olives;

Mat 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mat 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

Jesus has been telling them that he was going to Jerusalem to be crucified and now at this time he let's them know that it is about to happen. He goes to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray and I believe it is at that time he has the conversation concerning their mission.

Mat 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
Mat 26:37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.

Jesus prayed

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

After praying three times he says to Peter who along with James and John were in the garden about selling a purse to buy a sword. He knew that after his resurrection things were going to be hard for anyone preaching the gospel. The sword was not to a offensive weapon but rather a defensive one. We see that from the next few verses.

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

Jesus has been focused on their mission while they mistakenly were focused on the swords. Jesus finally says "enough" in other words ok, let's move on.

ewq1938
Nov 7th 2013, 04:21 AM
Yes it's a real sword.

God can protect someone in any way of course but sometimes God chooses to protect someone by helping that person protect themselves. Having a sword was essential back then just as having a gun was important in the wild west....etc.





Luke 22:
35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36. 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.
[I]37. 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.

dan
Nov 7th 2013, 10:38 AM
Luke 22:
35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36. 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.
37. 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.

I have read several commentaries regarding this and have yet to reconcile how do you sell garments for the word of God? I cannot accept that Christ meant a literal sword, yet it appears he meant literal purse and script.

Yes, it is a literal sword, or weapon.

I believe the time is coming when Jesus will be maligned for telling His Followers to buy that sword. It appears to be what He wanted.

The laws will change all over the world, except for the US, and the whole world will come to take our weapons. That's how Jesus will become the Transgressor, He will be seen as violating a law in our future. It was prophecy.

Perhaps you've seen the news lately.

You see the ONLY message from Jesus that tells us HOW to PRODUCE PEACE is Luke 11:21 :

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

Jesus also told us to oppose the intruder:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

Also, there is the verse from Paul that tells us to be all about the things that make for peace:

ROM 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
ROM 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
ROM 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
ROM 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

Revelation has two verses that we will need weapons for, in order to keep His Sayings:

To kill the murderer that murders with a weapon-

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

And, to make war with the whore of Babylon:

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

SirToady
Nov 7th 2013, 06:35 PM
Why do you find it difficult to believe the apostles would need a real sword? I looked at the context in Matthew's account and came away with this understanding.

It is the night of Jesus' betrayal, he and his disciples go to the Mount of Olives;

Mat 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mat 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

Jesus has been telling them that he was going to Jerusalem to be crucified and now at this time he let's them know that it is about to happen. He goes to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray and I believe it is at that time he has the conversation concerning their mission.

Mat 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
Mat 26:37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.

Jesus prayed

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

After praying three times he says to Peter who along with James and John were in the garden about selling a purse to buy a sword. He knew that after his resurrection things were going to be hard for anyone preaching the gospel. The sword was not to a offensive weapon but rather a defensive one. We see that from the next few verses.

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

Jesus has been focused on their mission while they mistakenly were focused on the swords. Jesus finally says "enough" in other words ok, let's move on.

It certainly seems logical and I considered that, here are a couple of commentaries by Henry's and Jamieson,Fausett, and Brown;

"Our Lord gave notice of a very great change of circumstances now approaching. The disciples must not expect that their friends would be kind to them as they had been. Therefore, he that has a purse, let him take it, for he may need it. They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves."

"But now--that you are going forth not as before on a temporary mission, provided for without purse or scrip, but into scenes of continued and severe trial, your methods must be different; for purse and scrip will now be needed for support, and the usual means of defense."

Considering the times it seems apparent that they would already have these things, actually two did on their person in the garden. It is not a big point, but I tend to lean towards the sword of the Spirit.

dan
Nov 7th 2013, 08:14 PM
What did Paul cut off ear with?

http://biblehub.com/john/18-10.htm

You are a part of a government that demands that you own a weapon. What did Paul say about government?

ROM 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
ROM 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
ROM 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
ROM 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
ROM 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
ROM 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
ROM 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

boangry
Nov 7th 2013, 08:46 PM
What did Paul cut off ear with?

http://biblehub.com/john/18-10.htm

We know it was a real sword I think the op is asking was the sword mentioned by the Lord a spiritual application that the disciples were later able to understand using spiritual insight! Just like the rock Moses struck in the wilderness was a real rock, but Paul later tells us the rock was Christ.
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The rock was not Christ yet we are told by God through his Word that it was Christ.

Of course our garments are a picture of our physicality, we are clothed in a earthly body, to remove our garments is to be dead. The OP can see what appears to be a contradiction with this picture, and I agree it is not a physical sword, does anyone approve of Peter using the sword?

Even those that put the purple (speaks of royalty) robe on the Lord while mocking him, while mocking the Jews identifying him as the king, but they were also mocking him as God for God removed his glorious garments before stepping down out of heaven to earth. Yet he is arrayed in garment again, that we may wear new garments, white and washed in the blood.

boangry
Nov 7th 2013, 09:54 PM
When Jesus told disciples to buy sword they did not say “wait,Lord, we will run to sword store in the morning, do paperwork, undergobackground check and wait ten business days”. They just said: “we have a coupleright here” They clearly carried swords while walking with Jesus and He did nottell them to stop doing that. Christianity is not a suicide pact. There is adifference between martyrdom and suicide and one who does not understand itwill argue endlessly for total pacifism.


There is also a difference between being a pacifist and committing suicide, Why would Jesus ask them to buy a sword if they had a couple right there? Did the Lord get it wrong? when I said to sell ones garments is to be dead, We are to reckon ourselves dead to this world not to try and kill ourselves.

Do you think Peter should have went berserk to defend the Lord and others was it the right thing to do?

ewq1938
Nov 7th 2013, 10:10 PM
There is also a difference between being a pacifist and committing suicide, Why would Jesus ask them to buy a sword if they had a couple right there? Did the Lord get it wrong?

Answer your own question. Why would Christ ask them to buy a sword if they had a couple right there?

boangry
Nov 7th 2013, 10:48 PM
Maybe because they only had two of them?. So The Lord thought two would not be enough then he changed his mind?

boangry
Nov 7th 2013, 10:53 PM
Answer your own question. Why would Christ ask them to buy a sword if they had a couple right there?

The question was asked to make people think upon it and a challenge or the gauntlet across the face to those who believe the Lord was not making a spiritual reference or a lesson for the disciples to recall later. Since you cant answer it ill answer it later after others have opportunity to show me the answer.

ewq1938
Nov 7th 2013, 11:02 PM
The question was asked to make people think upon it and a challenge or the gauntlet across the face to those who believe the Lord was not making a spiritual reference or a lesson for the disciples to recall later. Since you cant answer it ill answer it later after others have opportunity to show me the answer.


I can answer it I just thought it would help you better if you tried to first then we can further discuss it.

boangry
Nov 7th 2013, 11:20 PM
And off course your answer will be the only right and final one and you will be doing “gauntlet across faces” of those who disagree with you. You are the ultimate authority of this subject after all.

You couldn't be more wrong, the bible is the ultimate authority on this subject and every subject, the challenge is for you to make your case to show me your view in line with scripture which you havnt yet, to ask the questions means im challenging you to challenge me to show me whats right. I wouldn't ask questions if Im not changeable. The Pharisees asked questions of the Lord and the Lord asked questions of the Pharisees and The disciples asked the Lord questions and the Lord asked the disciples questions, whats the problem?

ewq1938
Nov 8th 2013, 12:45 AM
Context proves he was speaking of a real sword. He wanted them to sell what they had to get a sword but when they said they had some, he felt that was enough. No symbology can apply in this situation.

boangry
Nov 8th 2013, 01:21 PM
Context proves he was speaking of a real sword. He wanted them to sell what they had to get a sword but when they said they had some, he felt that was enough. No symbology can apply in this situation.

Buts it is not that straight forward and simple, Lots of people asks questions concerning these verses because they can see something does not make sense. The context of the chapter is the passover and the Lord earlier says to the disciples “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Verse 15 and 16

The Lord also says to them this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you, This goes right over the disciples heads as they start talking about who will be the greatest in the kingdom. The shepherd will be struck, and the sheep will scatter.

I think the Lord was looking ahead to and after the cross and the disciples didn’t understand what was about to take place namely that Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb about to be crucified.
The Lord is explaining to the disciples that there is about to be a change, when he sent them without money knapsack and sandals they lacked nothing for they had the Lord with them instructing them and providing their everyday needs, there is going to be change for them after the cross, the biggest of course is the fact Jesus their Master, friend and brother and God was no longer physically going to be with them.

Now he is instructing them for after the cross which they do not realise even though being plainly told the Lord must suffer these things, He tells them but now you will have to take money and a knapsack “and he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one” notice the instruction “Let he who has no sword sell his garment and buy one”
If it was a literal instruction right then and there and no way there is any symbology in this situation then why did they not go sell their garments? Why did Jesus instruct them that they all needed to do so, and then when they produced two swords He says “it is enough”?

Why when Peter was ready to fight with the sword, He is instructed not to and the Lord even heals the wound?

Why did it seem that the Lord was not talking about the mob and the betrayel but was talking about a future time period that has to be post cross which the disciples just could not fathom?

The only reason I can see for not even contemplating that there are deeper truths hidden here is if the verse is already being taken to mean something else, like the Lord has instructed his disciples to arm themselves and we can apply that instruction for ourselves therefore we are justified to go to war…

Who cares there must be other verses that instruct the Christian to go to war without this verse which is ambiguous at best so why not look at it from a neutral position…

divaD
Nov 8th 2013, 03:32 PM
Yes it's a real sword.

God can protect someone in any way of course but sometimes God chooses to protect someone by helping that person protect themselves. Having a sword was essential back then just as having a gun was important in the wild west....etc.

Even though I too believe the sword was real, I hardly doubt the reasons for the swords was for protection of themselves. Jesus was attacked on many occasions, where they even tried to stone Him a cpl of times. I don't ever recall one single time where Jesus or any of His followers tried to defend against the attackers with swords or anything, nor where they ever threw stones back at them. And besides, is one to believe that 2 men armed with swords would be a match for 20 to 50 men armed with swords, or even 10, if the other numbers seem a bit high? Meaning the ones who initially came to arrest Jesus.


John 18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

This says a band of men. A band of men usually consists of more than just 2 0r 3 men I would think.

ewq1938
Nov 8th 2013, 11:27 PM
Buts it is not that straight forward and simple


Actually it is.


, Lots of people asks questions concerning these verses because they can see something does not make sense. The context of the chapter is the passover and the Lord earlier says to the disciples “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Verse 15 and 16

Irrelevant to whether Christ spoke of a literal sword or not.




The Lord also says to them this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you, This goes right over the disciples heads as they start talking about who will be the greatest in the kingdom. The shepherd will be struck, and the sheep will scatter.


Irrelevant to whether Christ spoke of a literal sword or not.



I think the Lord was looking ahead to and after the cross and the disciples didn’t understand what was about to take place namely that Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb about to be crucified.
The Lord is explaining to the disciples that there is about to be a change, when he sent them without money knapsack and sandals they lacked nothing for they had the Lord with them instructing them and providing their everyday needs, there is going to be change for them after the cross, the biggest of course is the fact Jesus their Master, friend and brother and God was no longer physically going to be with them.


Irrelevant to whether Christ spoke of a literal sword or not.




Now he is instructing them for after the cross which they do not realise even though being plainly told the Lord must suffer these things, He tells them but now you will have to take money and a knapsack “and he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one” notice the instruction “Let he who has no sword sell his garment and buy one”
If it was a literal instruction right then and there and no way there is any symbology in this situation then why did they not go sell their garments?

Just read the text! Jesus decides two swords would be enough.




Why did Jesus instruct them that they all needed to do so, and then when they produced two swords He says “it is enough”?

He simply changed his mind!



Why when Peter was ready to fight with the sword, He is instructed not to and the Lord even heals the wound?

That is obvious! No one had the right to prevent the crucifixion!




Why did it seem that the Lord was not talking about the mob and the betrayel but was talking about a future time period that has to be post cross which the disciples just could not fathom?

Swords were used as protection. Christ simply worried about his disciples being able to defend themselves.




The only reason I can see for not even contemplating that there are deeper truths hidden here is if the verse is already being taken to mean something else, like the Lord has instructed his disciples to arm themselves and we can apply that instruction for ourselves therefore we are justified to go to war…

Who cares there must be other verses that instruct the Christian to go to war without this verse which is ambiguous at best so why not look at it from a neutral position…

The verses have NOTHING to do with going to war. It only proves Jesus supports the ownership of defensive weapons.

ewq1938
Nov 8th 2013, 11:49 PM
Even though I too believe the sword was real, I hardly doubt the reasons for the swords was for protection of themselves.

That is teh only use for one. You don't use a sword to put butter on your bread.



Jesus was attacked on many occasions, where they even tried to stone Him a cpl of times. I don't ever recall one single time where Jesus or any of His followers tried to defend against the attackers with swords or anything, nor where they ever threw stones back at them.

That doesn't prove anything. That only shows they didn't need to protect themselves in those situations plus we don't have written every moment of their lives. They might have had to use their swords in situations not written of.




And besides, is one to believe that 2 men armed with swords would be a match for 20 to 50 men armed with swords, or even 10, if the other numbers seem a bit high? Meaning the ones who initially came to arrest Jesus.

No but Christ said two were enough so two was enough.



John 18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

This says a band of men. A band of men usually consists of more than just 2 0r 3 men I would think.

Indeed.

boangry
Nov 9th 2013, 11:45 AM
Actually it is

From your viewpoint



Irrelevant to whether Christ spoke of a literal sword or not... disagree, seems relevant to me



Irrelevant to whether Christ spoke of a literal sword or not. this couldn’t be more relevant and is why commentators will express the importance that the context of a chapter is key to understanding verses, if you don’t see the context as lining up with your view then I will just have to accept you disagree to it being of relevance.


Irrelevant to whether Christ spoke of a literal sword or not. It could not be more relevant If Israel thought they were going to be delivered (by the sword) and the Kingdom about to be set up and ruled by the deliverer then they had this based on doctrinal error, it even affected the disciples thinking, they thought the kingdom was an earthly kingdom, Yet Christ taught that his kingdom was not of this earth, He taught about a heavenly kingdom, yet He spake in parables and hid truth in symbology so those who were blind remained blind.

The disciples were slow to understand this and the Lord did not open their eyes to it until after the cross, He said it would be beneficial for him to go and for them to receive the helper to lead them into truth.
Again when he told them that they would all need to sell their garments and buy a sword, he was speaking of something they did not understand, Garments are pictures of bodies as is the sword a picture of the word.


Just read the text! Jesus decides two swords would be enough.He said it would be enough in the context the disciples asked in, when the disciples who were on a totally different tangent and misunderstood the Lords words for they then said to the Lord they have two swords the Lord said it was enough, they did not go and sell their garments to buy the two swords which was what the Lord was saying for them to do...




He simply changed his mind! I cant help but think of this as denying the Lords divine nature; he knows everything and doesn’t whimsically retract what he says or change his mind… Yet it is of such importance that Luke guided by the Holy spirit put pen to paper on this very detail, if I changed my mind Ild leave the detail of my previous/different instructions out.


That is obvious! No one had the right to prevent the crucifixion! Agree, Peter has a habit of putting his foot in it concerning the Lord when He needs to go to the cross, one could say it was sinful or of Satan to try and stop it, Yet peter thought he should have a sword there?



Swords were used as protection. Christ simply worried about his disciples being able to defend themselves. But He wasnt worried about them protecting themselves, He knew full well that he was going to be betrayed and handed over, and also knew the disciples were going to die of martyrdom (except for John) And told them not to concerned with their earthly vessels and that they were already overcomers of the world and would be comforted.



The verses have NOTHING to do with going to war. It only proves Jesus supports the ownership of defensive weapons Absolutely agree these verses have nothing to do with going to war, but please explain further, do you take these verses as a teaching and proof that Jesus wants us (Christians) to arm ourselves with defensive weapons like guns and to one could extrapolate that out to bombs and that we may use them offensively if the need to react first is prudent?

ewq1938
Nov 10th 2013, 06:24 AM
I cant help but think of this as denying the Lords divine nature; he knows everything and doesn’t whimsically retract what he says or change his mind…

Firstly, Jesus did not "know everything". Second, there is nothing "whimsical" about learning there are two swords and deciding that is enough.




Agree, Peter has a habit of putting his foot in it concerning the Lord when He needs to go to the cross, one could say it was sinful or of Satan to try and stop it, Yet peter thought he should have a sword there?

There was nothing odd or wrong about carrying a sword. He simply should have know that the crucifixion was God's plan for Jesus and that stopping it was wrong.



But He wasnt worried about them protecting themselves, He knew full well that he was going to be betrayed and handed over, and also knew the disciples were going to die of martyrdom (except for John) And told them not to concerned with their earthly vessels and that they were already overcomers of the world and would be comforted.

Yet he not only allowed them to carry weapons in his presence, he once mentioned buying more swords.



Absolutely agree these verses have nothing to do with going to war, but please explain further, do you take these verses as a teaching and proof that Jesus wants us (Christians) to arm ourselves with defensive weapons

I have already answered that: "It only proves Jesus supports the ownership of defensive weapons"



like guns and to one could extrapolate that out to bombs and that we may use them offensively if the need to react first is prudent?

Certainly.

shepherdsword
Nov 10th 2013, 07:32 AM
I admit that I look at this verse through my American paradigm. I own a firearm and I justify it using this very verse. I think about this though. I wonder if I am really prepared to take the life of another human being just to stop the spoiling of some material goods? Am I in a sense condemning a soul to hell because I don't want to lose a few thousand dollars? Isn't the soul of one man worth more than the whole world? Now in situations where I would need to stop someone from hurting another under my care I would have no hesitation...but for a burglary attempt? We need to seriously think about how far we are willing to go and under what circumstances would we use deadly force. Not much time to think in moments like that and I can only hope I would respond in a manner approved by God if I am ever tested in such a way. I see a simple way out of a possible test of this nature altogether...get rid of the weapon and trust God for protection.

dan
Nov 10th 2013, 11:55 AM
I meant Peter. Sorry.

He was not part of any government.

You were right though, I knew who you meant.

Peter and Paul were both part of a kind of government weren't they? Many of the things they put forward in the Bible we use to govern our lives, yes?

boangry
Nov 10th 2013, 10:36 PM
I admit that I look at this verse through my American paradigm. I own a firearm and I justify it using this very verse. I think about this though. I wonder if I am really prepared to take the life of another human being just to stop the spoiling of some material goods? Am I in a sense condemning a soul to hell because I don't want to lose a few thousand dollars? Isn't the soul of one man worth more than the whole world? Now in situations where I would need to stop someone from hurting another under my care I would have no hesitation...but for a burglary attempt? We need to seriously think about how far we are willing to go and under what circumstances would we use deadly force. Not much time to think in moments like that and I can only hope I would respond in a manner approved by God if I am ever tested in such a way. I see a simple way out of a possible test of this nature altogether...get rid of the weapon and trust God for protection.

I own firearms but I never would pick one up for "self defence" you said
get rid of the weapon and trust God for protection I agree except from slightly different angle, I just "Trust God" which may not include his physical protection...

ewq1938
Nov 10th 2013, 11:59 PM
I own firearms but I never would pick one up for "self defence"

Why own firearms then?

SirToady
Nov 11th 2013, 01:34 AM
I admit that I look at this verse through my American paradigm. I own a firearm and I justify it using this very verse. I think about this though. I wonder if I am really prepared to take the life of another human being just to stop the spoiling of some material goods? Am I in a sense condemning a soul to hell because I don't want to lose a few thousand dollars? Isn't the soul of one man worth more than the whole world? Now in situations where I would need to stop someone from hurting another under my care I would have no hesitation...but for a burglary attempt? We need to seriously think about how far we are willing to go and under what circumstances would we use deadly force. Not much time to think in moments like that and I can only hope I would respond in a manner approved by God if I am ever tested in such a way. I see a simple way out of a possible test of this nature altogether...get rid of the weapon and trust God for protection.

Not so simple, unless you can read minds and foresee future events knowing that it is just a burglary.

boangry
Nov 11th 2013, 07:38 AM
Why own firearms then?

Oh... need firearms for my livelihood.

ewq1938
Nov 11th 2013, 08:09 AM
Oh... need firearms for my livelihood.

No reason to further explain right?

boangry
Nov 11th 2013, 10:19 AM
No reason to further explain right?

Explain what? seriously has something gone over my head?

ewq1938
Nov 12th 2013, 04:31 AM
Explain what? seriously has something gone over my head?

I am curious how firearms aid you in your work yet you would not use them in self defense....so what do you use them for?

boangry
Nov 12th 2013, 12:13 PM
I am curious how firearms aid you in your work yet you would not use them in self defense....so what do you use them for?

I work as a hunter, which relates back to the subject, I cant find any info to see if it was illegal for Jews to carry military type swords or not, Priests would be allowed to have knives/swords under the religious freedom Rome provided for use likes of the Passover, and I assume Jews would be allowed to carry a small sword if it was for their work. Which takes us back to the word used for sword, It can mean either a tool like knife, that fishermen would have or a short sword, but not a large sword.


The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon, for the word sword used in Luke 22

"Machaira"

Definition
a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword curved sword, for a cutting stroke
a straight sword, for thrusting


Another interesting thing about this verse "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." I read it and think it is now important that the disciples buy a sword (after the Lords departure) If he's referring to the disciples arming themselves with a sword then it means they should be prepared to take the physical fight out into the world, If its the Word of truth, then the disciples should be ready to take the word out into the world and it is shown that the Word became their weapon of choice, to win souls into the kingdom? remind you of a proverb?


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

Also in the Greek the word sword only appears in this verse once, someone may correct me but I can read the verse like this

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his scrip and if he has not, let him sell his garment, and buy a sword. (Boangrys translation...) Meaning buy the Word and walk in its truth even if it costs you your material possessions even your life.

For those whom love their money or their lives was James referring back to the Lords words? "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten" Jas 5:1-2

dan
Nov 12th 2013, 02:38 PM
Of course our garments are a picture of our physicality, we are clothed in a earthly body, to remove our garments is to be dead. The OP can see what appears to be a contradiction with this picture, and I agree it is not a physical sword, does anyone approve of Peter using the sword?

Approve of using the sword to stop Jesus from being killed for my sins? No, I don't approve.

If, however, you make any innocent an object of an attack, including Jesus, I whole-heartedly agree to defending them with the sword, because that is righteous.

Jesus was innocent and incapable of defending Himself, in Peter's eyes, if you recall:

MT 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
MT 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
MT 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

LK 9:43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
LK 9:44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
LK 9:45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

MK 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
MK 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

LK 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
LK 18:32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
LK 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
LK 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

fewarechosen
Nov 12th 2013, 04:21 PM
in that scripture sword = sword of truth/the Word of God, garment = flesh.

the apostles had not had their understanding opened by Christ yet, so in an earthly fashion when Christ said that, they thought of metal swords and showed the 2 they had, Christ says "its enough" because they are all thinking metal swords when thats not even what he is speaking of. if he actually wanted them to buy real swords by selling their clothes it would have not been enough because he told them to buy them, but since he was speaking of the sword of truth they didnt have to run out and sell their literal clothes and buy a literal sword.

that sword he is speaking of is as much a metal sword as Christ is an actually fuzzy "lamb" or as much as him being the "true vine" means he is literal a wooden vine. Sometimes when Christ speaks he is using the examples of real world literal objects to describe spiritual things and is not speaking of those physical things. He spoke in parables.

so no, no one has to go sell their literal clothes and buy a literal sword.

i find many who are trying to take this literal are not taking it literal at all, their understanding of literal is off as well. they want to say the sword was literal but then they change it into a weapon when using it in application, and they just skip over the whole sell your garment thing as if thats not literal.

"sell your garment and buy a sword" is vastly different than "take some cash and buy a weapon"

so question for anyone who takes it literal, did you actually sell your literal clothes and buy a literal sword ? because if one is saying it is literal then that what must be done.

ewq1938
Nov 13th 2013, 01:14 AM
I work as a hunter, which relates back to the subject,

Ok, so you will shoot animals but you won't shoot a person who is trying to kill you or your family?



I cant find any info to see if it was illegal for Jews to carry military type swords or not,

No it wasn't illegal else those with swords would have been arrested.



Priests would be allowed to have knives/swords under the religious freedom Rome provided for use likes of the Passover, and I assume Jews would be allowed to carry a small sword if it was for their work. Which takes us back to the word used for sword, It can mean either a tool like knife, that fishermen would have or a short sword, but not a large sword.

G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
makh'-ahee-rah
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.


G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
Thayer Definition:
1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
2b) a straight sword, for thrusting
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a presumed derivative of G3163
Citing in TDNT: 4:524, 572

This would not be a knife as we think of today. This is a small sword made primarily for war, offensive and defensive purposes.


Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Here the same word is used as the opposite of peace.





Another interesting thing about this verse "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." I read it and think it is now important that the disciples buy a sword (after the Lords departure) If he's referring to the disciples arming themselves with a sword then it means they should be prepared to take the physical fight out into the world, If its the Word of truth, then the disciples should be ready to take the word out into the world and it is shown that the Word became their weapon of choice, to win souls into the kingdom?

Christ said a sword, not anything else. It was so important that it would be best to not have a "coat" than to be without a sword.




Pro 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
remind you of a proverb?

Nope, totally unrelated.




Also in the Greek the word sword only appears in this verse once, someone may correct me but I can read the verse like this

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his scrip and if he has not, let him sell his garment, and buy a sword. (Boangrys translation...) Meaning buy the Word and walk in its truth even if it costs you your material possessions even your life.


lol, nope. That a ridiculous translation. We already have had some of the best translators work on this and their work has been done properly with knowledge and education in the appropriate languages. There is no need to try to alter that work here unless one simply ccannot accept what is plainly written and seeks to change it by any means necessary.

ewq1938
Nov 13th 2013, 01:16 AM
"sell your garment and buy a sword" is vastly different than "take some cash and buy a weapon"

Not to someone who speaks English fluently.

We must be able to discern literal from figurative and not mix the two up else we won't be able to understand the scriptures.

dan
Nov 13th 2013, 05:12 PM
in that scripture sword = sword of truth/the Word of God, garment = flesh.

I could agree except I believe that self-defense is a legitimate Christian Requirement.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.


the apostles had not had their understanding opened by Christ yet, so in an earthly fashion when Christ said that, they thought of metal swords and showed the 2 they had, Christ says "its enough" because they are all thinking metal swords when thats not even what he is speaking of. if he actually wanted them to buy real swords by selling their clothes it would have not been enough because he told them to buy them, but since he was speaking of the sword of truth they didnt have to run out and sell their literal clothes and buy a literal sword.

I believe that you are forgetting the object here.

The object, as stated by Jesus Himself, is to become a "transgressor" of some law.

LK 22:37 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.

Perhaps it is not clear that anyone, besides a slave, was ineligible to own, or bear, a sword during Jesus' Lifetime, but that only means it is prophecy.

I contend that the beast will make self-defense a death-penalty crime, which could certainly make the acquisition of weapons illegal.

REV 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Jesus, wishing to be a transgressor against the future beast, would, obviously, insure His Followers were of that mind as well.

That is why "it" was "enough". 'It is enough that I have told you to buy a weapon to make me a transgressor.'


that sword he is speaking of is as much a metal sword as Christ is an actually fuzzy "lamb" or as much as him being the "true vine" means he is literal a wooden vine. Sometimes when Christ speaks he is using the examples of real world literal objects to describe spiritual things and is not speaking of those physical things. He spoke in parables.

If the beast does not try to take weapons from the earth, and then the Christian Bibles, you are right.:lol:

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)


so no, no one has to go sell their literal clothes and buy a literal sword.

I think the reason He mentioned the selling of the coat is because the coat is used to conceal the modern sword-the pistol. Another reason it's prophecy.


i find many who are trying to take this literal are not taking it literal at all, their understanding of literal is off as well. they want to say the sword was literal but then they change it into a weapon when using it in application, and they just skip over the whole sell your garment thing as if thats not literal.

If it is prophecy, Jesus cannot mention the pistol, He can only talk about the old world equivalent.


"sell your garment and buy a sword" is vastly different than "take some cash and buy a weapon"

True. He not only wants you to buy a weapon, He wants you to carry it openly.


so question for anyone who takes it literal, did you actually sell your literal clothes and buy a literal sword ? because if one is saying it is literal then that what must be done.

If that is what He meant, I would certainly do it, but, He did not.

boangry
Nov 14th 2013, 10:02 AM
Ok, so you will shoot animals but you won't shoot a person who is trying to kill you or your family? Shooting animals has nothing to do with killing people two totally different things, One Im allowed to do In Gods eyes the other Im not, As for killing people that are going to kill me or my family, no I wont kill them.

But the question is that open ended everyone who asks that question and everyone that answers it, will have different scenarios in their head, there are to many variables to gauge ones answer or question. In other words its a leading question set up for one to answer wrongly, Why don't you ask, would you do everything you could to stop someone killing you or your family apart from killing them? yes I would...




No it wasn't illegal else those with swords would have been arrested. hmm Im still going to chase this up..





G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
makh'-ahee-rah
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.


G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
Thayer Definition:
1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
2b) a straight sword, for thrusting
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a presumed derivative of G3163
Citing in TDNT: 4:524, 572

This would not be a knife as we think of today. This is a small sword made primarily for war, offensive and defensive purposes.

A knife, a dirk(dagger) or a small sword, There is no word used for dagger or knife apart from this word, if its also a sword then context will determine what its referring to cant give it one legalistic meaning and make it fit every scenario



Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Here the same word is used as the opposite of peace. lol, nice verse

The Lord did come to bring peace, he preached peace, and he made peace.

The sword here is figurative of division, not a literal sword read the next verse, he has come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother etc

then down to verse 38 and "he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me and he who finds his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will find it."

again its exactly the same theme we must be prepared to lose our garment(life) and follow the Lord(the living Word) and this will bring division for the Word of God is like a sharp dagger it is living and powerful and discerns the thoughts of the heart.




Christ said a sword, not anything else. It was so important that it would be best to not have a "coat" than to be without a sword. Coats were really important then...




lol, nope. That a ridiculous translation. We already have had some of the best translators work on this and their work has been done properly with knowledge and education in the appropriate languages. There is no need to try to alter that work here unless one simply ccannot accept what is plainly written and seeks to change it by any means necessary.

By all means show me why its not a legitimate rendering? there is the flip side of the coin to cannot accept what is written.

dan
Nov 14th 2013, 11:41 AM
The Lord did come to bring peace, he preached peace, and he made peace.

...And what is the only verse that tells us HOW to MAKE peace?

LK 11:21 When a strong man ARMED keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.(emphasis added)


The sword here is figurative of division, not a literal sword read the next verse, he has come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother etc

That doesn't fit, IMO, with the rest of the verses that encourage us to take the sword.


then down to verse 38 and "he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me and he who finds his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will find it."

Yes, and who will they kill?

Will they kill the one who surrenders their guns and doesn't fight? No. They will find their life.

Or, save their life.


again its exactly the same theme we must be prepared to lose our garment(life) and follow the Lord(the living Word) and this will bring division for the Word of God is like a sharp dagger it is living and powerful and discerns the thoughts of the heart.

Be prepared to save your life, because you won't take a life in defense of yourself or others.

Your just the kind they like.


By all means show me why its not a legitimate rendering? there is the flip side of the coin to cannot accept what is written.

If only you could see it my way.;)

fewarechosen
Nov 14th 2013, 02:25 PM
your quoting luke and its very far out of context

lets look at the scripture again, in context watch what happens,

Luk 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

you leave it only as the above, in the above we have an armed man who keeps his palace and his goods are in place, the : becomes important

now lets look at the very next verse

Luk 11:22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

the very next verse someone who is stronger than the armed man comes upon him and overcomes him and takes all the armour in which he trusted and divides the spoils, so the armed guy who keeps his palace and is overcome by someone stronger and loses.

so in your example you couldnt be more off you quote thisscripture as something about how to keep peace when armed but dont even realize the armed guy gets crushed by someone stronger and gets his belongings spoiled. so if one wants to sign up as the dude who gets crushed and loses the armour in which he trusted thats on you i suppose, but i at least suggest reading the scripture around the one you quote.

so i find it intersting that when you say

"...And what is the only verse that tells us HOW to MAKE peace?"

your version of how to make peace is to be the armed man who loses all the armour he trusted in and is overcome by the stronger man, not a wise plan and very much out of context

fewarechosen
Nov 14th 2013, 02:34 PM
oh and if you want a correct quote on HOW to MAKE peace

Pro_16:7 When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.

thats how you do it, make your ways please the Lord, then your most ferocious blood thirsty man skinning enemy will make peace with you, or like the previous scripture one can be like the armed man who trusted in his armour and gets beat down

ewq1938
Nov 14th 2013, 10:25 PM
Shooting animals has nothing to do with killing people two totally different things

No it's the same.



, One Im allowed to do In Gods eyes the other Im not


Incorrect.




, As for killing people that are going to kill me or my family, no I wont kill them.


Then you will fail as a man and let down your family. You have a Godly duty to protect them, not watch them be raped and murdered when you could protect them.





But the question is that open ended everyone who asks that question and everyone that answers it, will have different scenarios in their head, there are to many variables to gauge ones answer or question. In other words its a leading question set up for one to answer wrongly, Why don't you ask, would you do everything you could to stop someone killing you or your family apart from killing them? yes I would...

You already stated it's against God's will to kill a person and you stated you would not use a gun to defend yourself. I don't think you would.




A knife, a dirk(dagger) or a small sword, There is no word used for dagger or knife apart from this word, if its also a sword then context will determine what its referring to cant give it one legalistic meaning and make it fit every scenario

It's a small sword used for war, that's what the meaning is.





lol, nice verse

The Lord did come to bring peace, he preached peace, and he made peace.


No he didn't. You speak contrary to our Lord's own words which you said was a "nice verse".




The sword here is figurative of division, not a literal sword read the next verse, he has come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother etc


It was more than division, it was war. A war against false religion, a war against untruth, a war against evil and death.



then down to verse 38 and "he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me and he who finds his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will find it."

again its exactly the same theme we must be prepared to lose our garment(life) and follow the Lord(the living Word) and this will bring division for the Word of God is like a sharp dagger it is living and powerful and discerns the thoughts of the heart.


Life is not a garment.




Coats were really important then...

In the desert? lol Yeah, sure they were.




By all means show me why its not a legitimate rendering? there is the flip side of the coin to cannot accept what is written.

You are not a translator. You are not a Greek scholar. You are not capable of a proper re-translation. You seek to ALTER the proper translation because you "cannot accept what is written".

boangry
Nov 14th 2013, 10:45 PM
I believe that you are forgetting the object here.

The object, as stated by Jesus Himself, is to become a "transgressor" of some law.

LK 22:37 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.

Perhaps it is not clear that anyone, besides a slave, was ineligible to own, or bear, a sword during Jesus' Lifetime, but that only means it is prophecy.

I contend that the beast will make self-defense a death-penalty crime, which could certainly make the acquisition of weapons illegal.

REV 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Jesus, wishing to be a transgressor against the future beast, would, obviously, insure His Followers were of that mind as well.

That is why "it" was "enough". 'It is enough that I have told you to buy a weapon to make me a transgressor.'





If only you could see it my way.;)


Hi Dan, If we keep trying to explain our viewpoints maybe we can at least understand one another a bit better :)

I notice you say
The object, as stated by Jesus Himself, is to become a "transgressor" of some law. and then you quote He was reckoned among the transgressors, As referring to the Lord and/or his disciples.
however notice the end of the verse you quoted for the things concerning me have an end...

This is in fulfilment of the Isaiah ch 53


Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

To me this is looking at the cross, Jesus who walked a perfect life, the only man who was ever worthy and able to do so was numbered/reckoned among the transgressors, He was declared to be worthy of death by the Sanhedrin and sentenced to death by the roman authority.

A death given to those guilty of transgressions, the worst of the criminals, I just want to suggest that this is what prophecy and the Lord was referring to he was put between to criminals and reckoned the same as they.

John says "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst". Joh 19:18

Can I even be so bold as to suggest the two criminals are us, all of humanity, all mankind is a transgressor against God and we all have the death penalty over our head and we all rightly so for God is a righteous and a just God.
Since Adam transgressed by disobeying and eating the fruit we all have been sentenced to death...

So we are represented by the two malefactors that are on the cross under the judgement that ends up being the same fate as the Lord.

We have a choice, all mankind has a choice the same as the criminals



And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.


But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

The second criminal is the believer, He reckonised Jesus as God, seen he was indeed justly condemned(a sinner), seen that Christ was guilty of nothing, and asked to enter his kingdom, Which is of course answered in the affirmative.

The first criminal is the opposite, the unbeliever, His attitude is If God wants to save me let him save me...

anyway back to Matthew 10:38 "he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me and he who finds his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will find it."

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." rom 6:23

"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Col_3:3


The believer is to reckonise he was on the cross condemned a sinner unclean, and that he is to reckon himself dead to this world, he who realises that he is dead but saved by the grace and mercy of God will find he has Life eternal

boangry
Nov 14th 2013, 11:14 PM
No it's the same. Killing animals is the same as killing men women and children? verses please



Then you will fail as a man and let down your family. You have a Godly duty to protect them, not watch them be raped and murdered when you could protect them

You already stated it's against God's will to kill a person and you stated you would not use a gun to defend yourself. I don't think you would.. this is nothing but misrepresentation






It's a small sword used for war, that's what the meaning is. well then don't quote the lexicon, that says it can be a large knife used for cutting up meat.



No he didn't. You speak contrary to our Lord's own words which you said was a "nice verse". But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

eph 2:14-17




It was more than division, it was war. A war against false religion, a war against untruth, a war against evil and death. Sounds like you are starting to spiritualise it, how do you wield a real sword against false religion, against untruth, evil and death, kill everyone who does not agree with you?






Life is not a garment. lol and a body is not a temple


In the desert? lol Yeah, sure they were. must be



You are not a translator. You are not a Greek scholar. You are not capable of a proper re-translation. You seek to ALTER the proper translation because you "cannot accept what is written".Imagine a layman thinking he can have an understanding of Greek, Only those qualified by man can say what a word means or how a sentence should be structured, next a layman will think he can stand in the pulpit

ewq1938
Nov 15th 2013, 03:46 AM
Killing animals is the same as killing men women and children? verses please

It's the same as far as taking a life.



well then don't quote the lexicon, that says it can be a large knife used for cutting up meat.

Yeah, a small sword to cut meat.






Sounds like you are starting to spiritualise it, how do you wield a real sword against false religion, against untruth, evil and death, kill everyone who does not agree with you?


Jesus does:


Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.






lol and a body is not a temple

Find a clear example of the bible using a garment to represent life.





Imagine a layman thinking he can have an understanding of Greek, Only those qualified by man can say what a word means or how a sentence should be structured, next a layman will think he can stand in the pulpit

Exactly my point. You are a layman and are not qualified to change the translation based on your "belief" that Christ could not have supported self defense by use of a real sword.

dan
Nov 15th 2013, 11:12 AM
your quoting luke and its very far out of context

lets look at the scripture again, in context watch what happens,

Luk 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

you leave it only as the above, in the above we have an armed man who keeps his palace and his goods are in place, the : becomes important

now lets look at the very next verse

Luk 11:22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

the very next verse someone who is stronger than the armed man comes upon him and overcomes him and takes all the armour in which he trusted and divides the spoils, so the armed guy who keeps his palace and is overcome by someone stronger and loses.

When you disarm the man does he become the one that saves lives and has peace in his own house?

No. The unarmed man is overcome without any problem and peace on his property is only by the whim of the criminal.

Jesus Himself says that we are to oppose the intruder:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

Would you have a seventy year-old, seventy pound grandma facing a 25 year-old weight-lifter in a battle for her life?

With a weapon she can win.

Rodney Long, 38, an inmate who had escaped from prison, decided to hide out in the home of 71-year-old Jerome Mauderly and his wife Carolyn, 66. He broke into the home around 10:15 p.m. and held the couple hostage as he gathered supplies to aid in his escape. But after four hours, Jerome Mauderly decided to put up a fight and retrieved his shotgun. Mauderly fired a single shot before a 911 call was made shortly after 2 a.m. Police arrived to find Long lying face down in the kitchen of the Mauderlys’ home with a fatal gunshot wound, putting an end to the manhunt. Long was serving time on a burglary charge and was suspected of shooting a sheriff’s deputy after his escape from prison. The Mauderlys sustained no injuries. (The Huffington Post, Bedford, IA, 8/21/13)

After locking up, a female employee of Cakes and Confections 4U was leaving the business through a back door when she realized she was cornered by two strange men. One man struck her in the jaw while the other ripped off her necklace and earrings. When the men then attempted to sexually assault the woman, she produced a concealed .32 cal. firearm from her waistband and fired. Both men immediately dropped the stolen jewelry and ran. It was last reported that the assailants were still at large. After the incident, the woman said her firearm saved her life and that she had a strong message to all women, “If you don’t have a gun or you’re scared of guns, get familiar with them and get a gun.” (FOX Carolina 21, Landrum, SC, 8/29/12)

Kendra St. Clair, a 12-year-old at home alone one day during her fall break, called her mother at work to say there was a man repeatedly ringing the doorbell and banging on the door. When no one answered the door, she said he disappeared. St. Clair’s mother instructed her daughter to get her .40-cal. Glock pistol and go into a bathroom closet. St. Clair heard him break in through the back door. As the man made his way through her home, 911 dispatchers kept St. Clair on the phone. He was inside the home for approximately six minutes before he made his way to the bathroom where St. Clair was hiding. When she saw the door knob begin to turn, she fired the gun. The 32-year-old intruder was taken into custody after being treated for a gunshot to the chest. (The Oklahoman, Durant, OK, 10/20/12)

With a weapon, a woman has only a one in four chance of being injured in a criminal encounter, statistically. A man one in 2.5.

Without weapons there is no advantage because the criminals are, almost always, either armed or know they are at an advantage with size, strength, and youth.


so in your example you couldnt be more off you quote this scripture as something about how to keep peace when armed but dont even realize the armed guy gets crushed by someone stronger and gets his belongings spoiled. so if one wants to sign up as the dude who gets crushed and loses the armour in which he trusted thats on you i suppose, but i at least suggest reading the scripture around the one you quote.

so i find it intersting that when you say

"...And what is the only verse that tells us HOW to MAKE peace?"

your version of how to make peace is to be the armed man who loses all the armour he trusted in and is overcome by the stronger man, not a wise plan and very much out of context

If you have some kind of advantage in remaining unarmed, say it. I don't understand. Anyone can lose a fight be he armed or unarmed, but the advantage is to the armed.

Many people seem to believe that peace is not served by the bearing of arms. They are wrong.

Until you show me a verse in the NT that shows HOW to MAKE peace, I stand by my claim.

dan
Nov 15th 2013, 11:23 AM
oh and if you want a correct quote on HOW to MAKE peace

Pro_16:7 When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.

thats how you do it, make your ways please the Lord, then your most ferocious blood thirsty man skinning enemy will make peace with you, or like the previous scripture one can be like the armed man who trusted in his armour and gets beat down

How true!

I prefer the NT version, however:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

Let's look at some of Jesus' Sayings and think how we should keep them:

MT 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
MT 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
MT 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

MK 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
MK 4:25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

LK 22:36 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.

JN 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

dan
Nov 15th 2013, 11:58 AM
Hi Dan, If we keep trying to explain our viewpoints maybe we can at least understand one another a bit better :)

I notice you say and then you quote He was reckoned among the transgressors, As referring to the Lord and/or his disciples.
however notice the end of the verse you quoted for the things concerning me have an end...

This is in fulfilment of the Isaiah ch 53

I disagree.

Knowing beforehand that Jesus was to be Resurrected, the Isaiah verse could not be the end.

There is no end to Christ, as I see it, except for, perhaps, DAN 11:22:

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)

Here we see weapons being taken away, and, it appears Jesus as well.

They would have to kill every Christian, destroy every Bible. That's quite the tall order.


anyway back to Matthew 10:38 "he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me and he who finds his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will find it."

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." rom 6:23

"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Col_3:3

The believer is to reckonise he was on the cross condemned a sinner unclean, and that he is to reckon himself dead to this world, he who realises that he is dead but saved by the grace and mercy of God will find he has Life eternal

But, all your words cannot erase the Words Of Jesus. The verses that tell us to buy the sword, kill the murderer, oppose the intruder. These words are His Sayings that we must figure out how to keep.

I say He meant them literally, and until someone can show me otherwise, that's the path I will take.

SirToady
Nov 21st 2013, 02:10 AM
I disagree.

Knowing beforehand that Jesus was to be Resurrected, the Isaiah verse could not be the end.

There is no end to Christ, as I see it, except for, perhaps, DAN 11:22:

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)

Here we see weapons being taken away, and, it appears Jesus as well.

They would have to kill every Christian, destroy every Bible. That's quite the tall order.



But, all your words cannot erase the Words Of Jesus. The verses that tell us to buy the sword, kill the murderer, oppose the intruder. These words are His Sayings that we must figure out how to keep.

I say He meant them literally, and until someone can show me otherwise, that's the path I will take.

Could not Christ's words be both literal and symbolic - that is what I finally have come to accept.

ewq1938
Nov 21st 2013, 02:50 AM
DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)

Here we see weapons being taken away, and, it appears Jesus as well.


It does not say weapons are taken away:

Dan 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.


It's simply talking about this vile person overcoming his opposition with flatteries, metaphorically called the arms of a flood.

ewq1938
Nov 21st 2013, 02:53 AM
Could not Christ's words be both literal and symbolic - that is what I finally have come to accept.

Even a symbolic sword is used as a symbol of defense from an attack. He clearly spoke about buying swords in a literal sense. In a symbolic meaning for those that just have to have symbolism added, there will come a time when the sword of truth will be needed against lies. The disciples were already taught such a thing so the lesson there was not about symbolic issues but real life issues.

They said they had two real swords and Christ decided that would be enough so it's about real swords since having two REAL SWORDS was enough to satisfy Christ.

SirToady
Nov 21st 2013, 03:41 AM
Even a symbolic sword is used as a symbol of defense from an attack. He clearly spoke about buying swords in a literal sense. In a symbolic meaning for those that just have to have symbolism added, there will come a time when the sword of truth will be needed against lies. The disciples were already taught such a thing so the lesson there was not about symbolic issues but real life issues.

They said they had two real swords and Christ decided that would be enough so it's about real swords since having two REAL SWORDS was enough to satisfy Christ.

But isn't in the end the sword of truth that prevails?

ewq1938
Nov 21st 2013, 03:52 AM
But isn't in the end the sword of truth that prevails?

Christ returns and slays human beings with the sword of his mouth so it's both that prevail when wielded by the righteous.

SirToady
Nov 21st 2013, 03:56 AM
Christ returns and slays human beings with the sword of his mouth so it's both that prevail when wielded by the righteous.

Amen and thank you.

dan
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:40 AM
Could not Christ's words be both literal and symbolic - that is what I finally have come to accept.

Are you thinking, perhaps, a dual fulfillment?

I suppose that is possible. But, can you think of any examples of that happenning before?

dan
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:51 AM
It does not say weapons are taken away:

Dan 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

It's simply talking about this vile person overcoming his opposition with flatteries, metaphorically called the arms of a flood.

I see your point, but, since it appears that the arms are not broken before they are flown from before him, I will assume that you are incorrect.

As for the part about flatteries: think about the sincerest form of flattery-imitation.

The AC will not obtain the kingdom in the normal manner, but will find that people follow him through imitation, IMO.

This makes me think that he will be the first to wear the 'mark'.

He is too evil a man to be allowed in office, but the people are very evil as well.

ewq1938
Dec 2nd 2013, 03:18 AM
I see your point, but, since it appears that the arms are not broken before they are flown from before him, I will assume that you are incorrect.

You said the verse said weapons were being taken away. The verse does not speak of this at all. So, it is you that is incorrect without any assumptions needed.

dan
Dec 2nd 2013, 07:53 AM
You said the verse said weapons were being taken away. The verse does not speak of this at all. So, it is you that is incorrect without any assumptions needed.

So, you are thinking that the AC will cut off everyone's bodily arms and fly them away?:rolleyes:

ewq1938
Dec 2nd 2013, 08:03 AM
So, you are thinking that the AC will cut off everyone's bodily arms and fly them away?:rolleyes:

That is a terrible reply. Try again if you are able.

dan
Dec 2nd 2013, 08:13 AM
That is a terrible reply. Try again if you are able.

Unable?

You are the one that is unable, or unwilling.

Why don't you just explain yourself, if you can.

AlphaMega
Dec 21st 2013, 08:49 AM
Does the NT ever say we should not physically defend ourselves? Directly? Not that I have been able to find but correct me if I'm wrong.

Is there decent interpretive room to condone the defense of ourselves or others in need with weapons or without? I think at least in an indirect way in the NT, and in very direct ways in the OT.
Did Jesus ever use a weapon to punish, attack or defend? Yes he did under specific circumstances.

Should we just assume that in every situation that we can retaliate against our enemies in a violent physical way?
I should hope not considering our obligations to love(agape=sacrificially) our enemies and pray for those who persecute us,,,

That being said, there can be no doubt that God has condoned and even blessed those who have used physical means to defend themselves, their families, and their countries from physical manifistations of our true enemy (Satan) through many forms of tyranny, foreign and domestic. If these defences had not taken place, then we would likely not be here freely writing in these forums today.

The answers to questions on this subject are not simple and we will likely never reach a consensus on the true interpretation of the Sword(s) that our Lord spoke of, but let us not destroy our unity of spirit in Christ on a subject that he spent such little time on himself, but focus on the core of his teaching in Repentance, Faith, Salvation, Hope, and Love.
Lets Love him with everything we have, and love each other as ourselves.{as much as possible} ;-)
With the grace that we've been given let's follow our convictions, living at peace with others to the best of our ability, and let the chips fall where the Sovereign one wills...

I have enjoyed and appreciated this thread and pray you all be blessed. Merry Christmas!!!

dan
Dec 23rd 2013, 12:29 PM
Does the NT ever say we should not physically defend ourselves? Directly? Not that I have been able to find but correct me if I'm wrong.

I would say that it depends on whether you can take Jesus at His Word:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

LK 22:36 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.

LK 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.


Should we just assume that in every situation that we can retaliate against our enemies in a violent physical way?
I should hope not considering our obligations to love(agape=sacrificially) our enemies and pray for those who persecute us,,,

So, we can't take Jesus' Word as above? The good man does allow his house to be broken? Those that are armed don't have peace? Murderers must not be killed with the sword?

I would submit that we are obligated to the Bible in more ways than you believe.

Pray for those that will persecute you always, for in the rush to love your neighbor there won't always be time.


That being said, there can be no doubt that God has condoned and even blessed those who have used physical means to defend themselves, their families, and their countries from physical manifistations of our true enemy (Satan) through many forms of tyranny, foreign and domestic. If these defences had not taken place, then we would likely not be here freely writing in these forums today.

Yup, and those manifestations are going to appear again, for that is the nature of the enemy.


The answers to questions on this subject are not simple and we will likely never reach a consensus on the true interpretation of the Sword(s) that our Lord spoke of, but let us not destroy our unity of spirit in Christ on a subject that he spent such little time on himself, but focus on the core of his teaching in Repentance, Faith, Salvation, Hope, and Love.
Lets Love him with everything we have, and love each other as ourselves.{as much as possible} ;-)

Like I said, you have to be able to take the Word literally. Or, we can watch our children be murdered over and over again until we learn the truth of those words.

I believe, as far as love goes, you are right. But, being at peace with others is only required to the degree that is within you. There is no desire for peace within me for any that would murder.

ROM 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.


I have enjoyed and appreciated this thread and pray you all be blessed. Merry Christmas!!!

And you.