Two Swords are Enough

Theology from a biblical approach. Topics posted should have a direct relationship to scripture.

Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:41 am

Hi everyone. I just posted a blog concerning the verse in Luke 22:38.

I would be interested in your comments of the blog article and your thoughts of the meaning of that verse.

You can see my thoughts on it described here:

http://thatdayandhour.info/index.php/20 ... re-enough/

Here is the verse:
Luk 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Cindy Skillman » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:51 am

Hello, HWC

About your blog post. I commend you for a well-written and researched paper, and you've definitely put forth an idea I hadn't yet heard. You have some valid points. It seems to me though, that a lot of times we tend to overthink these things. Not that I'm saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm not sure that's the point Jesus was making at that moment--or at least not the point His disciples would necessarily have understood Him to be making.

Jesus was talking about mundane things here--take a purse along, take the things you need, and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one (presumably because you'll need the sword more). Clearly Jesus did not advocate for, and indeed commanded against taking on the Roman government. (This would have included the Priestly government, whose chief priests were at that time Roman appointees.)

The highways of the day, however, were haunted by violent men. That's a different category from resisting the government. Rome didn't seem to have outlawed swords in the hands of the common man, so there must have been some need to protect oneself from other than the government. The obvious thing then, is that the disciples might need to protect themselves against brigands and highwaymen as they spread the gospel. People did tend to travel in groups for protection, but it might be difficult to find a suitable caravan to join. Even if you did find just what you needed, a caravan without defenders would be no safer than a man walking alone.

BUT... why did Jesus say, "It is enough"? I think this may be pretty straightforward. He was giving them some earthly advice and now He had finished with that. He didn't want to get into a discussion about how many swords, single or double-edged, whether they ought to have Burleigh or Strong-in-the-Arm manufacture, the merits and demerits of Damascus steel, etc. He'd given His practical instructions and now He wanted to move on to more important things. Basically, "Okay, enough about the side arms..."

So, that's my take on it, for what it may be worth. Yours is a lot deeper and maybe better. Sometimes, though, the simple explanation eludes us because we're looking for obscure meaning where the gospel writers were just relating the events and sometimes maybe even poking a bit of fun at their own expense about how silly and earthly-minded they'd been.
. . . we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

http://www.journeyintotheson.com
User avatar
Cindy Skillman
Administrator
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:11 am
Location: South Dakota, USA

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:22 am

Hi Cindy,

I thank you for your response. I think that position is answered in my blog post a bit. Consider these verses:

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Now the disciple that used the sword had actually done so from what would appear to be a defensive position to protect either himself or Jesus. But Jesus rebuked him for this by saying those that take a sword shall perish with the sword.

So if Jesus is rebuking them for doing what would seem to be taking up a sword to defend themselves then what can we conclude? Seems the command to take up the sword was not to be for defense purposes. We know that is true from what comes next:

Mat 26:53  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 

So Jesus is saying if He needed defense, He could pray and get twelve legion of angels. I don't believe that Jesus is ever trying to keep His followers from harm but on the contrary it seems He puts them in harms way.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Cindy Skillman » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:52 pm

Yes, I read that part. Hence my mention of taking up the sword against the government being different from defending oneself against a highwayman.
. . . we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

http://www.journeyintotheson.com
User avatar
Cindy Skillman
Administrator
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:11 am
Location: South Dakota, USA

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:44 pm

Cindy Skillman wrote:Yes, I read that part. Hence my mention of taking up the sword against the government being different from defending oneself against a highwayman.


Thanks for that clarification Cindy. I think if that were the case then Jesus would have responded in that sense. But instead He responded with:

Mat 26:53  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 

So I believe His response to the disciple would be much more confusing with that verse if He could have said rather, the sword is not to be used against the government.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm being contrary but I like to explore things deeply and don't want to come off as being terse.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hermano » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:17 pm

Hi Hewillcome2040. Nice blog. Keep up the good work!

Here at The Evangelical Universalist forum, I am often an advocate for the writings of my friend Richard Murray—an author, theologian, and criminal defense attorney in Georgia. (But, in fact, he and I do have our disagreements, for example, about eschatology.) Murray’s article, SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?,” changed my life.

In his free ebook, God vs. Evil, Murray examines this question of Luke 22:35-38 on page 363, “QUESTION 62: DID JESUS TELL US TO BUY AND BEAR SWORDS?”

I think you and he are on the same wavelength.

Blessings.

PS I am thankful to the Lord for keeping this forum up and running! And many thanks to Jason, Cindy, and any other administrators and moderators involved.
Hermano
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 8:32 am
Location: Guadalajara, Jalisco, México

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 pm

Hermano wrote:Hi Hewillcome2040. Nice blog. Keep up the good work!

Here at The Evangelical Universalist forum, I am often an advocate for the writings of my friend Richard Murray—an author, theologian, and criminal defense attorney in Georgia. (But, in fact, he and I do have our disagreements, for example, about eschatology.) Murray’s article, SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?,” changed my life.

In his free ebook, God vs. Evil, Murray examines this question of Luke 22:35-38 on page 363, “QUESTION 62: DID JESUS TELL US TO BUY AND BEAR SWORDS?”

I think you and he are on the same wavelength.

Blessings.

PS I am thankful to the Lord for keeping this forum up and running! And many thanks to Jason, Cindy, and any other administrators and moderators involved.


I thank you for those links I went and read question 62. Mr. Murry did reach the same conclusion with regards to the Sword being a spiritual reference. I'm surprised that he didn't equate that with the reference to the Word of God or take it further with why 2 of them were enough. If you read my article, you will see that I have taken the topic into that extended investigation. When we understand it more, it draws so many verses together.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby LLC » Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:34 am

HWC, I tend to agree with Cindy, that the sword was needed for self defense.
Mark 6:7 says "Then Jesus called the twelve to Him and began to send them out two by two giving them authority over unclean spirits. He instructed them to take nothing but a staff for the journey, no bread, no bag, no money..."
Luke 10:1 "After this, the Lord appointed 72 others and sent them two by two..." verse 4 "carry no purse or bag or sandals.."

According to these verses, they were already going out in twos with nothing but the Word/ Spirit of God. However, Jesus does not tell them to continue to do so, but instead, He instructs them to take a purse and sell their garments to purchase a sword. Buying a sword is the key thing here. One can't buy spiritual knowledge.
LLC
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:38 am

LLC wrote:HWC, I tend to agree with Cindy, that the sword was needed for self defense.
Mark 6:7 says "Then Jesus called the twelve to Him and began to send them out two by two giving them authority over unclean spirits. He instructed them to take nothing but a staff for the journey, no bread, no bag, no money..."
Luke 10:1 "After this, the Lord appointed 72 others and sent them two by two..." verse 4 "carry no purse or bag or sandals.."

According to these verses, they were already going out in twos with nothing but the Word/ Spirit of God. However, Jesus does not tell them to continue to do so, but instead, He instructs them to take a purse and sell their garments to purchase a sword. Buying a sword is the key thing here. One can't buy spiritual knowledge.


Jesus is not telling them to take a sword for self defense. Jesus telling them to take a sword to kill others with offensively. But that Sword is not a literal sword. It is the Word of God.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby LLC » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:21 pm

Hewillcome2040 wrote:Jesus is not telling them to take a sword for self defense. Jesus telling them to take a sword to kill others with offensively. But that Sword is not a literal sword. It is the Word of God.


HCW, In looking at the verses, I would have to disagree. Luke 22:35-38 "When I sent you ( in twos) without money, bag, sack and sandals, did you lack anything?" The answer to this question is no. They were already "killing" others offensively with the Word of God as you suggest. However, in verse 36, this is now not enough. It does not make any sense to say "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword(Word of God), let him sell his garment and buy one( the Word of God). Neither does it make sense to say this sword was another with the testimony of God, "He who has no sword ( companion), let him sell his garment and buy one(companion).

Maybe they went out and hired some bodyguards, who knows? In any event, they needed self protection. These were violent times. I believe in self defense. If a criminal breaks into my house, I am not going to whip out the Bible and have a Bible study with the guy. The time for that was before he broke into my house. Now is the time to protect myself and my family.
LLC
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:39 pm

LLC wrote:
Hewillcome2040 wrote:Jesus is not telling them to take a sword for self defense. Jesus telling them to take a sword to kill others with offensively. But that Sword is not a literal sword. It is the Word of God.


HCW, In looking at the verses, I would have to disagree. Luke 22:35-38 "When I sent you ( in twos) without money, bag, sack and sandals, did you lack anything?" The answer to this question is no. They were already "killing" others offensively with the Word of God as you suggest. However, in verse 36, this is now not enough. It does not make any sense to say "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword(Word of God), let him sell his garment and buy one( the Word of God). Neither does it make sense to say this sword was another with the testimony of God, "He who has no sword ( companion), let him sell his garment and buy one(companion).

Maybe they went out and hired some bodyguards, who knows? In any event, they needed self protection. These were violent times. I believe in self defense. If a criminal breaks into my house, I am not going to whip out the Bible and have a Bible study with the guy. The time for that was before he broke into my house. Now is the time to protect myself and my family.


Ok, then let's take your approach and say that Jesus was advising protection. Why then did He previous say that when He sent them out did they lack anything? If they were not lacking protection, then why suddenly do they need protection? What changed from before?
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby DaveB » Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:34 pm

Prudence is a virtue. It was simply prudent to be able to protect themselves. Really, just because it was not recorded that He said it on another occasion, does not imply that he did not. Jesus was a practical, rural peasant Jew and had plenty of common sense - in addition to being the smartest person who ever lived.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hermano » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:12 pm

Hewillcome2040 wrote:
Hermano wrote:Hi Hewillcome2040. Nice blog. Keep up the good work!

Here at The Evangelical Universalist forum, I am often an advocate for the writings of my friend Richard Murray—an author, theologian, and criminal defense attorney in Georgia. (But, in fact, he and I do have our disagreements, for example, about eschatology.) Murray’s article, SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?,” changed my life.

In his free ebook, God vs. Evil, Murray examines this question of Luke 22:35-38 on page 363, “QUESTION 62: DID JESUS TELL US TO BUY AND BEAR SWORDS?”

I think you and he are on the same wavelength.

Blessings.

PS I am thankful to the Lord for keeping this forum up and running! And many thanks to Jason, Cindy, and any other administrators and moderators involved.


I thank you for those links I went and read question 62. Mr. Murry did reach the same conclusion with regards to the Sword being a spiritual reference. I'm surprised that he didn't equate that with the reference to the Word of God or take it further with why 2 of them were enough. If you read my article, you will see that I have taken the topic into that extended investigation. When we understand it more, it draws so many verses together.

Yes, your points that “2 of them were enough,” and regarding the sending out of witnesses “two by two” are right-on.

But in "Question 62" Murray does reference Hebrews 4:12, to argue that "sword" is metaphorical for the word of God:

    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.
Murray often contends that God is nonviolent, and wants us to be, too. That is not to say that we are to be victimized and defrauded by Satan, but that “Our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood,” and The weapons of our warfare are NOT carnal.” Ephesians 6:12, 2 Corinthians 10:4.

Blessings.
Hermano
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 8:32 am
Location: Guadalajara, Jalisco, México

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:26 pm

I was going through the Internet. And came across this discussion - on a Catholic forum:


I found the discussion interesting, in that it evokes - different opinions. Let me present, a couple of samples:

Daniel_MarshAug '07

The words are literal. This passage is just before Jesus’ arrest in the garden. The area that they were traveling in was well known for robbers. The swords were for personal protection. They were not for offensive attacking of another person. Later when Peter cut off a man’s ear while Jesus was being arrested, Jesus healed the man and warned against unneccessary violence – “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”.

Exodus 22:2-3 (King James Version)

2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Basically, self defense when one’s life is in danger is allowable. But, killing a robber when lesser means of dealing with him is avilable is not allowed.

John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Basically, the thief is an armed robber and it is permissible to defend oneself in such a case.

Basic princlple, it is ok to use force to repeal a violent attacker to preserve life. Rahab, was in the hall of faith ( hebrews 11 ) because she lied to save the spies lives. I use her as an example of it being ok to do something to preserve life. Jesus healed on the sabbath, by doing so he was following the Jewish concept of saving a life or making a person whole when immediate action was required to do so.


ManresaAug '07

No the words are not literal. It is important to understand that in certain places in his gospel and in Acts, St. Luke uses irony to make a point, this is one of those places.

In Acts, St. Paul and the missionaries never arm themsleves and accept their fate as it comes.

What Our Lord, who preached peace, love of one’s enemies and praying for your enemies, the peace makers are the children of God, be meek and humble as I am… etc…, is saying here makes it illogical to assume that all of sudden Jesus is telling people to arm themselves.

The swords He is speaking of here are figurative and eludes to many things, the ways of the world that being the temporal and the spiritual, Judas’ infidelity to his master and Jesus’ fidelity to His mission and His followers, violence versus non-violent resistance etc…

With all of this taken into consideration, which is the whole of the gospels - - Our Lord’s teachings- -, it is not only illogical but impossible to even remotely assume that Jesus was referring to an actual sword, a weapon of death. In the passages spoken of in this thread, we see Our Lord dismissing the Apostles in disgust for them taking Him literally and then reprimanding St. Peter in the garden when he cuts off the ear of the High Priest’s (Caiphas) servant.


Then the famous works of Sigmund Freud - came to mind.

Image
Charismatic / Anglo-Orthodox / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse; Joel Osteen Fan;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2955
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:39 pm

For those that believe the swords are for protection, how to you square that position with these verses:

Rom 12:17  Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 
Rom 12:18  If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 
Rom 12:19  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:47 pm

Hewillcome2040 wrote:For those that believe the swords are for protection, how to you square that position with these verses:

Rom 12:17  Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 
Rom 12:18  If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 
Rom 12:19  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 


It gets into bigger questions.

    Is it OK, to go to war? Should the US retaliate - for example - if North Korea, sends a nuclear missile towards Washington?
    If the Las Vegas shooter, is busy killing people. And you had a gun and could save lives - by shooting him - would you?
    Etc.

It get's into ethical or moral dilemmas. We should strive for peace. And try to avoid violence - at all costs. But if we have no choice - then what?

And what do you make, of Matthew 10:34?

New International Version
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

New Living Translation
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.
Last edited by Holy-Fool-P-Zombie on Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charismatic / Anglo-Orthodox / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse; Joel Osteen Fan;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2955
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby DaveB » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:50 pm

The question is not about recompense nor avenging, right?? It's about prudently protecting yourself. Am I missing something?
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:21 pm

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:
It gets into bigger questions.

    Is it OK, to go to war? Should the US retaliate - for example - if North Korea, sends a nuclear missile towards Washington?
    If the Las Vegas shooter, is busy killing people. And you had a gun and could save lives - by shooting him - would you?
    Etc.

It get's into ethical or moral dilemmas. We should strive for peace. And try to avoid violence - at all costs. But if we have no choice - then what?

And what do you make, of Matthew 10:34?

New International Version
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

New Living Translation
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.


Well, I think the directive is to each of us personally that are in Christ. The United States is not in Christ.

As for this verse:

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

The Sword again is a reference to the Word of God.

Eph_6:17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:


I believe God can protect each of us (that are in Christ) and if He has a purpose for calling you in this world then that is the purpose that is going take place and nobody is going to stop that from happening.

Consider that Paul:

2Co 11:23  Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. 
2Co 11:24  Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 
2Co 11:25  Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 
2Co 11:26  In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 
2Co 11:27  In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 
2Co 11:28  Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 
2Co 11:29  Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 
2Co 11:30  If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. 
2Co 11:31  The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. 

God protects us until we serve the purpose He has for us as Christians. It doesn't mean we wont suffer persecutions and all these other things but those things will not take away the purpose that God has for us and we will NOT die until that purpose as Christians is completed.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Cindy Skillman » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:37 pm

We do not know that Paul carried no sword, however against an angry mob, a sword wouldn't be much help. In any case, whether or not Paul carried a sword, Jesus saw fit to advise His disciples to purchase one even if it meant selling that one's cloak. The sword goes along with the purse and etc. The disciples didn't require them on their earlier journeys but they WILL need them on subsequent occasions.

Regarding Jesus saying "I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword," this was a metaphor meant to warn His listeners that He would be a cause of contention and division even in the closest of relationships.

Regarding nations going to war, the idea that the USA is not "in Christ" is irrelevant. The man or woman who gives the order to launch a counter strike is a human being and either in Christ or not yet in Christ. If he is in Christ, is he thereby forbidden to come to the defense of his countrymen? Is it then immoral for a president who is a Christ follower to give the order to defend the nation? Or is it okay to give the order but not to personally pull the trigger? By this logic, if we're to be consistent, all LEOs must be non-Christians and Christians must not ask to be defended by them, because that would be no better than sin by proxy. If the POTUS (or similar) is a Christian, wouldn't it be hypocritical for her/him to accede to being accompanied by armed bodyguards? You see the logical extremes to which this extra-biblical doctrine takes us?

The sword is for self defense. It's the only logical conclusion. If it offends your personal ethic, then don't carry a "sword." As for myself I'd never carry a sword except maybe as a costume accessory. I prefer a Shield. It's much easier to conceal.
. . . we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

http://www.journeyintotheson.com
User avatar
Cindy Skillman
Administrator
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:11 am
Location: South Dakota, USA

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby LLC » Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:31 am

Hewillcome2040 wrote:Ok, then let's take your approach and say that Jesus was advising protection. Why then did He previous say that when He sent them out did they lack anything? If they were not lacking protection, then why suddenly do they need protection? What changed from before?


HCW, As John 9:4 says "While it is daytime, we must do the work of Him who sent Me. Night is coming when no one can work."
LLC
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:53 am

Hewillcome2040 wrote:
God protects us until we serve the purpose He has for us as Christians. It doesn't mean we won't suffer persecutions and all these other things but those things will not take away the purpose that God has for us and we will NOT die until that purpose as Christians is completed.


That thought can easily lead us, into a kind of fatalism. Like that the Muslims, Calvinists and "no free will" Christianity presents. We need to thread carefully here. ;)

Hewillcome2040 wrote:The Sword again is a reference to the Word of God.


By the way. Let's look at the answer given, by the Calvinist site Got Questions:


The answer they give is more in line with Cindy's answer...then yours, as the word of God.

In Matthew 10:34–36, Jesus said He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword, a weapon which divides and severs.


I think we need to strive for balance, between being peaceful and being practical.

    On the one hand, if mankind doesn't change their ways...It could lead to the tribulation, and the Zombie Apocalypse. And I am like Paul Revere, yelling:
    The Zombies are coming. The Zombies are coming.
    On the other hand, I see things - in a positive vein. Like that seen by the Eastern Orthodox/ Eastern Catholics and TV evangelist Joel Osteen.

I try to live in harmony - between these two extremes.

Image
Charismatic / Anglo-Orthodox / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse; Joel Osteen Fan;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2955
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Invernessian » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:39 am

I'm sorry to say this, but I don't find this entire discussion (argument?) to be very edifying.
User avatar
Invernessian
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:59 am

Invernessian wrote:I'm sorry to say this, but I don't find this entire discussion (argument?) to be very edifying.


It's called practical or pragmatic Christianity. You might be trying to frame everything - in the NT - into a framework of peace. Like the Quakers and Mennonites do. I can respect it. But we live in a fallen world. And we sometimes have to make choices - that aren't very pleasant. Like not being peaceful, if push comes to shove. If you want to ALWAYS be peaceful...because that's how you view Christ and the NT - so be it. I can still be a Christian, in the FULL sense. But NOT always be peaceful - if push comes to shove.

Now suppose I have a black belt in Jiu-Jitsu, I'm an expert marksman, have a concealed weapons permit and I'm a Christian...I honor all scripture as true...as well as the historical creeds. And I try to be peaceful. From my perspective, I can use the Jiu-Jitsu - and the firearm...should the need arise...and still be a Christian.

Charismatic / Anglo-Orthodox / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse; Joel Osteen Fan;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2955
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Invernessian » Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:30 pm

Well, thanks for putting me straight, HFPZ. I accept your counsel. Hereon, although I don't have a sword. I guess I can feel free to take the gloves off.
User avatar
Invernessian
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby DaveB » Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:37 pm

Take them off mainly with HFPZ. :lol: :lol:
(Just kidding - we do kidding too).
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:57 pm

I think we need, a lesson in fighting. From a first class terror. :lol:

Mainly, I think we need to align ourselves - with the historical church fathers, the historic creeds and the thoughts of reformers. Otherwise, we can get many interesting variations. Like:

My own tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse. Which I feel is the most realistic, of the statistical outliers.., of traditional, bell-shaped curve theologies - presented here. We have everything done - Full Preterism. Ultra universalism - God waves his magic wand and let's everyone in. Or no free will and universalism. God and the devil are equal, in power and might. And everything is idealism - Christian science. All equally plausible and defendable - by sola scriptura.

But we need, BOTH Christian men and women of peace...As well as, Christian men and women of war - at times.

Charismatic / Anglo-Orthodox / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse; Joel Osteen Fan;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2955
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:01 pm

Cindy Skillman wrote:We do not know that Paul carried no sword, however against an angry mob, a sword wouldn't be much help. In any case, whether or not Paul carried a sword, Jesus saw fit to advise His disciples to purchase one even if it meant selling that one's cloak. The sword goes along with the purse and etc. The disciples didn't require them on their earlier journeys but they WILL need them on subsequent occasions.

Regarding Jesus saying "I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword," this was a metaphor meant to warn His listeners that He would be a cause of contention and division even in the closest of relationships.

Regarding nations going to war, the idea that the USA is not "in Christ" is irrelevant. The man or woman who gives the order to launch a counter strike is a human being and either in Christ or not yet in Christ. If he is in Christ, is he thereby forbidden to come to the defense of his countrymen? Is it then immoral for a president who is a Christ follower to give the order to defend the nation? Or is it okay to give the order but not to personally pull the trigger? By this logic, if we're to be consistent, all LEOs must be non-Christians and Christians must not ask to be defended by them, because that would be no better than sin by proxy. If the POTUS (or similar) is a Christian, wouldn't it be hypocritical for her/him to accede to being accompanied by armed bodyguards? You see the logical extremes to which this extra-biblical doctrine takes us?

The sword is for self defense. It's the only logical conclusion. If it offends your personal ethic, then don't carry a "sword." As for myself I'd never carry a sword except maybe as a costume accessory. I prefer a Shield. It's much easier to conceal.


I think we need to discern the Spirit in the words that Jesus said. When we take what He said literally then I believe we have stumbled.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:03 pm

LLC wrote:
Hewillcome2040 wrote:Ok, then let's take your approach and say that Jesus was advising protection. Why then did He previous say that when He sent them out did they lack anything? If they were not lacking protection, then why suddenly do they need protection? What changed from before?


HCW, As John 9:4 says "While it is daytime, we must do the work of Him who sent Me. Night is coming when no one can work."


Yes, that Night is fast approaching. The Word is to preach the Truth. In fact that is what my website is about. So I know the verse well and deeply concerned about it.

I think to discern the things of Christ then you have to throw out the literal interpretation of what He says and look Spiritually to discern the message that He is communicating.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:
Hewillcome2040 wrote:
God protects us until we serve the purpose He has for us as Christians. It doesn't mean we won't suffer persecutions and all these other things but those things will not take away the purpose that God has for us and we will NOT die until that purpose as Christians is completed.


That thought can easily lead us, into a kind of fatalism. Like that the Muslims, Calvinists and "no free will" Christianity presents. We need to thread carefully here. ;)

Hewillcome2040 wrote:The Sword again is a reference to the Word of God.


By the way. Let's look at the answer given, by the Calvinist site Got Questions:


The answer they give is more in line with Cindy's answer...then yours, as the word of God.

In Matthew 10:34–36, Jesus said He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword, a weapon which divides and severs.


I think we need to strive for balance, between being peaceful and being practical.

    On the one hand, if mankind doesn't change their ways...It could lead to the tribulation, and the Zombie Apocalypse. And I am like Paul Revere, yelling:
    The Zombies are coming. The Zombies are coming.
    On the other hand, I see things - in a positive vein. Like that seen by the Eastern Orthodox/ Eastern Catholics and TV evangelist Joel Osteen.

I try to live in harmony - between these two extremes.

Image


I disagree with the Got Questions website more often than not it seems. I don't think it a question of looking at the verses as needed into make a choice. I think if we look at them Spiritually, we will conclude the same thing.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Two Swords are Enough

Postby Hewillcome2040 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:13 pm

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:
It's called practical or pragmatic Christianity. You might be trying to frame everything - in the NT - into a framework of peace. Like the Quakers and Mennonites do. I can respect it. But we live in a fallen world. And we sometimes have to make choices - that aren't very pleasant. Like not being peaceful, if push comes to shove. If you want to ALWAYS be peaceful...because that's how you view Christ and the NT - so be it. I can still be a Christian, in the FULL sense. But NOT always be peaceful - if push comes to shove.

Now suppose I have a black belt in Jiu-Jitsu, I'm an expert marksman, have a concealed weapons permit and I'm a Christian...I honor all scripture as true...as well as the historical creeds. And I try to be peaceful. From my perspective, I can use the Jiu-Jitsu - and the firearm...should the need arise...and still be a Christian.

]


But let's consider Love, is it enough? Yes, but on condition. For the Bible tells us there is no reward if we only love those that love us. We need to love those that persecute us. Not return evil for evil. Not take vengeance. But be led to the slaughter as Christ was. For those in Christ emulate Him.
Hewillcome2040
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:02 pm


Return to Biblical Theology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests