I have always pondered on this question ,as to why Jesus in Luke 22 vs 35 to 38 ordered his disciples to buy a sword at all cost shortly before his arrest and cruxificion
was Jesus telling them to get prepared for self defence after his departure,or was he saying something metaphorical,please i want bible students to enlighten me.

Zeddicuz:
I have always pondered on this question ,as to why Jesus in Luke 22 vs 35 to 38 ordered his disciples to buy a sword at all cost shortly before his arrest and cruxificion
was Jesus telling them to get prepared for self defence after his departure,or was he saying something metaphorical,please i want bible students to enlighten me.

paste that bible verse here,

the order for sword was given because of Fulani herdsmen

Security is common sense . You're responsible to keep yourself alive till you're done here.

Luke 22:36
. . . .and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

It's a figurative speech.It means to be furnished for the challenges ahead.

thorpido:
It's afigurative speech.It means to be furnished for the challenges ahead.

I believe he meant real swords. Because some of them were actually armed .
Luke 22:38
. . . .And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Sarting from the time of John d Baptist, the kingdom of God suffereth violence and violence took it by force...

petra1:


I believe he meant real swords. Because some of them were actually armed .
Luke 22:38
. . . .And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

if He meant real swords,how come He rebuked Peter for using one?He should have just encouraged them all to bring out swords and fight.
I think the disciples may have misunderstood Him and armed themselves but His actions showed otherwise.

thorpido:
if he meant real swords,how come He rebuked Peter for using one?He should have just encouraged them to all to bring out swords and fight.

It was not necessary at that time because he had accepted the will of God .

thorpido:
if He meant real swords,how come He rebuked Peter for using one?He should have just encouraged them all to bring out swords and fight.
I think the disciples may have misunderstood Him and armed themselves but His actions showed otherwise.

He knew dat was his time and he has an obligation to fulfil his mission which is to die for u and me.

They wuldnt have succeeded in his arrest if dat wasn't his time.

petra1:



It was not necessary at that time because he had accepted the will of God .

Yes but after His death,burial and Resurrection,there was nothing in the lifestyle of the disciples to show they lived by the sword.As a matter of fact,they were fleeing from persecutors.
It either means they forgot the 'teaching' of Jesus concerning swords or they disobeyed Him.

thorpido:
Yes but after His death,burial and Resurrection,there was nothing in the lifestyle of the disciples to show they lived by the sword.As a matter of fact,they were fleeing from persecutors.
It either means they forgot the 'teaching' of Jesus concerning swords or they disobeyed Him.

Security is common sense . Jesus and disciples were responsible for their security . That's why they had swords. Remember many sought to kill Jesus prematurely. He had to protect himself till his assignment ended . Then he surrendered himself . There' had been situation where by he escaped the mob . Not because of fear of death but . Security is common sense.

John 10:39
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

thorpido:
It's afigurative speech.It means to be furnished for the challenges ahead.

figurative you said? but if this passage were to be in the Quran, christian apologists would have it is for jihaad or to forcefully convert non muslims,abi? christianity and Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the earth

abdulkabirO:

figurative you said? but if this passage were to be in the Quran, christian apologists would have it is for jihaad or to forcefully convert non muslims,abi? christianity and Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the earth

why dont you tell us the people Jesus Christ and the disciples killed with their swords before calling christians hypocrites?stop hating unnecessarily. in d passage there Jesus clearly said 2 swords was enough and when he was arrested he rebuked His disciples for fighting with the soldiers,the reason he asked them to get swords was even stated there but...u dont even read the Bible so I'l help you with it: verse 37 " For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors"

abdulkabirO:

figurative you said? but if this passage were to be in the Quran, christian apologists would have it is for jihaad or to forcefully convert non muslims,abi? christianity and Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the earth

Defence when attacked is different from . Offense,genocide in the name of forceful conversion

abdulkabirO:

figurative you said? but if this passage were to be in the Quran, christian apologists would have it is for jihaad or to forcefully convert non muslims,abi? christianity and Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the earth

Christian apologists you said?Whatever that is!
You compare that statement to the quran that specifically instructs to kill infidels-Jews and Christians saying because they say Jesus,the Messiah is the Son of God?What is quran 9:25-29 about?Abeg face your quran.
Jesus' words in that passage was a figurative speech.QED

petra1:


Security is common sense . Jesus and disciples were responsible for their security . That's why they had swords. Remember many sought to kill Jesus prematurely. He had to protect himself till his assignment ended . Then he surrendered himself . There' had been situation where by he escaped the mob . Not because of fear of death but . Security is common sense.

John 10:39
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

So from Scripture,how did He protect Himself?I'm security conscious,yet I don't carry a gun or a dagger.
Why did He escape when He could have fought them with swords and won?Remember Joshua,he fought and didn't try to escape.
I tell you those words were not literarily spoken.

thorpido:
So from Scripture,how did He protect Himself?I'm security conscious,yet I don't carry a gun or a dagger.
Why did He escape when He could have fought them with swords and won?Remember Joshua,he fought and didn't try to escape.
I tell you those words were not literarily spoken.

Common sense have to be applied . You escape when you can . You defend if you can't . I have a thread on this

https://www.nairaland.com/3602335/dont-criticize-mogs-security-common#53280029

thorpido:
Christian apologists you said?Whatever that is!
You compare that statement to the quran that specifically instructs to kill infidels-Jews and Christians saying because they say Jesus,the Messiah is the Son of God?What is quran 9:25-29 about?Abeg face your quran.
Jesus' words in that passage was a figurative speech.QED

good you mentioned that aayah,but there is nothing like kill in that aayah you quoted,what you have there is struggle against those in the islamic state who re under the protection of the muslim army to pay tax,finish.

petra1:


Defence when attacked is different from . Offense,genocide in the name of forceful conversion

so tell me about the crusaders

abdulkabirO:

good you mentioned that aayah,but there is nothing like kill in that aayah you quoted,what you have there is struggle against those in the islamic state who re under the protection of the muslim army to pay tax,finish.

quran9:29 says,... fight quran8:12 says smite then above their neck...
Abeg go and read well and tell me what fight and smite means.

abdulkabirO:

so tell me about the crusaders

Open a thread . I guess they were the people who fought against the muhamedans

petra1:


Common sense have to be applied . You escape when you can . You defend if you can't . I have a thread on this

https://www.nairaland.com/3602335/dont-criticize-mogs-security-common#53280029

Scripture is what we have to follow,not just assumptions.
Can you quote any passage in the bible where Jesus or He with some people had to defend themselves with swords?

thorpido:
Scripture is what we have to follow,not just assumptions.
Can you quote any passage in the bible where Jesus or He with some people had to defend themselves with swords?

You read Luke 22:36 didn't you?

petra1:

You read Luke 22:36 didn't you?

That's the passage the Op quoted and asked a question about,isn't it?
It was a statement Jesus made and I said it was figurative.
I'm yet to see any passage where the use of the swords was expressed-before He died or later with His disciples.

thorpido:
That's the passage the Op quoted and asked a question about,isn't it?
It was a statement Jesus made and I said it was figurative.
I'm yet to see any passage where the use of the swords was expressed-before He died or later with His disciples.

Peter used sword . Where did he get it from? They were armed . But That's not point .

John 18:10 (KJV)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

petra1:


Peter used sword . Where did he get it from? They were armed . But That's not point .

John 18:10 (KJV)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

....AND

Then said Jesus unto Peter,Put up thy sword into the sheath...vs 11

The issue is not that they were not armed.The issue is also not the action of Simon Peter.
The issue here is Jesus' statement implying that they should be armed and fight.There is no Scripture or better still actions to support that.I hope you get the point.

Jesus said Peter will deny Him.Peter indeed denied him.However,Jesus didn't say His plan was for Peter to deny Him.So we're not talking about what any disciple did but what Jesus said and meant.

thorpido:
....AND

Then said Jesus unto Peter,Put up thy sword into the sheath...vs 11
The issue is not that they were not armed.The issue is also not the action of Simon Peter.
The issue here is Jesus' statement implying that they should be armed and fight.There is no Scripture or better still actions to support that.I hope you get the point.

Jesus said Peter will deny Him.Peter indeed denied him.However,Jesus didn't say His plan was for Peter to deny Him.So we're not talking about what any disciple did but what Jesus said and meant.

If I get your point well ,we agree Jesus asked them to be armed
But your point was that he didn't ask them to attack .is that your point ?

petra1:


If I get your point well ,we agree Jesus asked them to be armed
But your point was that he didn't ask them to attack .is that your point ?

Armed........but not physically. It was figurative.Similar to the expression,'gird up your loins' as used in the bible.

thorpido:
Armed........but not physically. It was figurative.Similar to the expression,'gird up your loins' as used in the bible.

I don't agree with you. It was clear from scripture ,they were armed. What were they doing with swords. It was clear from scripture Jesus told them to get sword (disputed by you ). In response to Jesus request . They affirm they had two swords already. If Jesus was misunderstood,that's when he would have corrected them but rather he told them the two swords were enough. Confirming they understood one another . It was physical sword. Remember Jesus would not hesitate to correct if misunderstood as at other times . Just like the verses below.

CONCERNING LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES
Matthew 16:6-8
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? . . .11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

LAZARAUS CASE

John 11:11-14 (KJV)
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.


Silence means consent

Oh boy the sword here is not a physical sword but spiritual one.
Notice that 12 of them produced 2 swords and Jesus said they are enough.

Think about it, how can 12 people use 2 swords.

Luke 22 (KJV)
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.

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

A Christian sword is the WORD OF GOD!

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

So Jesus said to do all to get the sword

[quote author=thorpido post=53302151]....AND

Then said Jesus unto Peter,Put up thy sword into the sheath...vs 11

The issue is not that they were not armed.The issue is also not the action of Simon Peter.
The issue here is Jesus' statement implying that they should be armed and fight.There is no Scripture or better still actions to support that.I hope you get the point.


Jesus should have told Peter to throw his sword away as useless instead of asking him to put it back into its sheath. If possession of sword was not discouraged by Jesus but its uses on a particular occasion, why must we ignore possession arms for self defense completely? Something is not just balance here.