Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2013, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 6,987,831 times
Reputation: 594

Advertisements

Jesus said the following:

Luk 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.

This verse is to be understood from a Spiritual perspective. Too prove that point, let's look at what it says a bit later:

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

Notice that Jesus says it is ENOUGH. Two Swords are ENOUGH. Yet there was Himself and the 12 Apostles at this time. So why was ONLY TWO Swords Enough?

Have you ever really thought about this? When I finally understood the meaning, It brought a whole new perspective to the mission of the Apostles. I want to hear your thoughts and then I will tell you what I understand about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2013, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 6,987,831 times
Reputation: 594
Why would TWO be enough, why not 12 or 13 (one for each member present which would be Jesus and the 12 Apostles)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 6,987,831 times
Reputation: 594
Default Luke 22:38

Here is bit of what Adam Clarke says about the verse:

I must here confess that the matter about the swords appear to me very obscure. I am afraid I do not understand it, and I know of none who does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
17,071 posts, read 10,818,641 times
Reputation: 1869
The best I can do is to figure that there was no intent to engage in any pitched battles, but to indicate that the group was at least minimally prepared to defend itself if that was what was called for. Note that peter's use of his sword was rebuked at least in that situation. I see no metaphoric application.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 01:29 PM
 
535 posts, read 962,324 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by trettep View Post
Jesus said the following:

Luk 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.

This verse is to be understood from a Spiritual perspective. Too prove that point, let's look at what it says a bit later:

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

Notice that Jesus says it is ENOUGH. Two Swords are ENOUGH. Yet there was Himself and the 12 Apostles at this time. So why was ONLY TWO Swords Enough?

Have you ever really thought about this? When I finally understood the meaning, It brought a whole new perspective to the mission of the Apostles. I want to hear your thoughts and then I will tell you what I understand about it.
I've heard these verses explained both non-literally and literally.

Taking the verses literally some say Jesus knew the two swords were enough for Him to be taken into custody, and thus fulfill the Messianic prophecy. The disciples still didn't understand the whole message for later, in Luke 22:49-51 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

When Jesus said "It is enough," some say he meant "You guys just don't get it. What more can I say?"

My spin is that Jesus wanted His disciples not to go out into the world beating the message into people or threatening them into accepting it. They would have far greater success being as He was. Unfortunately, many unreal Christians lost sight of this over time and much bloodshed was spilled in the name of Christendom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2013, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 6,987,831 times
Reputation: 594
Good comments. I'm going to tell you what it means by using the scriptures. When Jesus spoke, He spoke parabolically. Therefore, if one were to take Him literally, then they would stumble over what He was speaking. This is why He showed his disciples privately. This is further confirmed by the fact that He rebuked Peter for later using the sword (as Nateswift pointed out.)

So the scriptures tell us that the Sword of the Spirit is 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:

So we know that when Jesus speak of a Sword, He is referring to the Word of God. So what does this have to do with TWO and why is that Enough. We now have one clue. The next clue is that the Apostles are mentioned. Using the term "apostles" and not "disciples". Additionally, that there are not others but them when this is spoken to them. More on that in a moment:

Luk 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

So, when is anything ENOUGH in the scriptures? - there is a case where it is enough. It is here:

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

So here we have a verse showing when TWO is enough. So what is the link here? - Well what is at the MOUTH? Obviously the Word of God:

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

What is the job of the Apostles? - to preach the Word. So Jesus is giving them a Spiritual message contained in an Earthly message. Remember what Jesus says:

Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Apostle means One sent. Jesus sent His messenger by twos:

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

So the reason that TWO SWORDS is ENOUGH because Jesus is sending TWO having the SWORD OF THE SPIRIT (The Word of God) to each to CONDEMN them of death (so that they can be alive in Christ).

That is the reason TWO Swords are ENOUGH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 11:08 AM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,084,424 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by trettep View Post
Jesus said the following:

Luk 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.

This verse is to be understood from a Spiritual perspective. Too prove that point, let's look at what it says a bit later:

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

Notice that Jesus says it is ENOUGH. Two Swords are ENOUGH. Yet there was Himself and the 12 Apostles at this time. So why was ONLY TWO Swords Enough?

Have you ever really thought about this? When I finally understood the meaning, It brought a whole new perspective to the mission of the Apostles. I want to hear your thoughts and then I will tell you what I understand about it.
Because he wasn't trying to field a conquering army--he was allowing for self-defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 11:17 AM
 
535 posts, read 962,324 times
Reputation: 205
From John Gill's Exposition of The Bible, written from 1746-1763:
Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them That is, Jesus said unto them, as the Persic version expresses it: but now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; signifying hereby, that from this time forward, immediately after his departure from them, after his death, resurrection, and ascension, when they should be sent into all the world to preach the Gospel, it would be otherwise with them than before; that they should be reduced to great penury and distress, should neither have food, nor money to buy any with; and that they should suffer hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and have no certain dwelling place, as was their case; see ( 1 Corinthians 4:11 ) and that they would not be received, and entertained in the manner they had been; and therefore it would be advisable, if they had any provisions, to take them with them in their scrips; or if they had any money, to carry it with them in their purses; for glad would they be to provide themselves with necessaries at any rate:and he that hath no sword; the word "sword" is not in this clause, but in the next; it is only in the original, "he that hath not"; which, at first sight; looks as if the sense was, he that hath not a purse, or a scrip, to sell, and buy a sword with, let him sell his garment, and buy one: but, as De Dieu observes, the phrase, "he that hath not", is the same with "he that has nothing"; who is a poor man, and has no money to buy a sword with, let him part with his garment, which rich men, who had money, had no need to do; though the Syriac, Persic, and Arabic versions put the word sword, in both clauses; he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy a sword; that is, if he could get one no other way. Christ here uses the common dialect of the nation, as Dr. Lightfoot observes. So on the feast of dedication of the temple,``if a man had not any thing to eat, but what he had by alms, he must beg, or (wtwok rkwm) , "sell his garment", and take oil, and lamps, and light them.'' These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself. In "seven" ancient copies of Beza's, it is read in the future tense, "he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy".


Luke 22:38
Quote:
And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords That is, the disciples said so, as the Persic version expresses it; for they understood Christ's words literally; and two swords being among them, and which they might bring with them from Galilee, to defend themselves from thieves, and robbers, which infested the roads between that country and Jerusalem; and one of these, as appears afterwards, belonged to Peter; they mention them with a desire of knowing they were sufficient, or whether they must provide themselves with more:and he said unto them, it is enough; or, "they are sufficient", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions render it; which must be understood either ironically; yes, two swords, to be sure, are sufficient for eleven men, and against many and powerful enemies: or his meaning is, they were sufficient to answer his purpose, and be an emblem of what he designed by the sword: or this was a short way of speaking, suggesting their stupidity and ignorance: it is enough, it is very well, I perceive you do not understand my meaning, and I shall say no more at present.
Commentaries on Luke 22:38 "It is enough."

From Barnes Notes on The Bible
Quote:
It is enough - It is difficult to understand this. Some suppose that it is spoken "ironically;" as if he had said, "You are bravely armed indeed, with two swords among twelve men, and to meet such a host!" Others, that he meant to reprove them for understanding him "literally," as if he meant that they were then to procure swords for "immediate" battle. As if he had said, "This is absurd, or a perversion of my meaning. I did not intend this, but merely to foretell you of impending dangers after my death." It is to be observed that he did not say "the two swords are enough," but "it is enough;" perhaps meaning simply, enough has been said. Other matters press on, and you will yet understand what I mean.
From Clarke's Commentary on The Bible
Quote:
It is enough. The meaning probably is, there is enough said on the subject; as immediately after this he entered into his agony.

Last edited by Priscilla Martin; 09-17-2013 at 11:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 6,987,831 times
Reputation: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Because he wasn't trying to field a conquering army--he was allowing for self-defense.
No it was not a directive for self defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 6,987,831 times
Reputation: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin View Post
From John Gill's Exposition of The Bible, written from 1746-1763:
Luke 22:36
[/b]

Luke 22:38
It was nothing about protection or self defense. I have described what it was for. But let's think about this for a moment. If it was about self defense, then we would have had mention of a use of self defense somewhere in the New Testament but I know of no case. In fact, I see the opposite. I see to love your enemies and to turn the cheek. Also, Christians have LIFE, so why the need for defense? If God wants them not to die, then God would not put them in a situation where death was a result. The fact that they died when they died and how they died shows that God put them in a situation for that result.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top