Should I buy a sword?

[Gray_Joy]

Still waiting for you to tell us when believers defended themselves with weapons in the book of Acts.

Look to Paul there.
If self defense were impermissible,Paul would have stood mute when charged with offenses.

Jesus taught non-retaliation. Vengeful armed acts against others. Not defense of self or others from aggressors.

You're choosing to offend the scriptures by injecting your ideology as having authority over them through interpolation. Not interpretation.
You argue from the standpoint of Isegesis. Not Exegesis.

If your preferred understanding were found through right understanding of the teachings of Jesus, you would not ignore the fact Jesus told his Disciples to buy swords even if they had to sell their cloak to do so. And further, given Peter wielded his in Gethsemane, they were proficient in their use.

Jesus commanded his Disciples to arm themselves. Which precludes the argument that Jesus promoted strong pacifism.

Jesus did not revoke his command to buy swords,nor the possession thereof,when he rebuked Peter for using his.

Jesus rebuked Peter because his being arrested was part of the plan of insuring the covenant of Salvation be accomplished.

Covenants were sealed by blood.

The blood of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. Jesus could not be saved from arrest by Peters sword. Because Jesus was born to save us.

You evade this challenge for obvious reasons.

I am affiliated with those who take the words of Jesus seriously when He said:

Turn the other cheek.

Love your enemies.

Do good unto those who abuse you.

Pray for those who persecute you.

Resist not an evil man.

Blessed be the peacemakers.

Put away thy sword.

Draw the sword, die by the sword.

We fight not against flesh and blood.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

My kingdom is not of this world, thus my servants do not fight.

 

[Anchorite]

If your preferred understanding were found through right understanding of the teachings of Jesus, you would not ignore the fact Jesus told his Disciples to buy swords even if they had to sell their cloak to do so. And further, given Peter wielded his in Gethsemane, they were proficient in their use.

Cutting off an ear, when the intent is to kill, is not “proficient” sword usage.

Jesus scolded Peter, He did not thank Peter. Jesus did not say, “Strike again!” Jesus said, “Put away thy sword!”

Some people try to claim that Jesus wanted His disciples to arm themselves, to have weapons for self defense.

But when Jesus said buy a sword, and the disciples replied they had two swords, Jesus said that was enough.

Thus, the swords were not for self defense or for killing those who attack. Two swords would not be nearly enough to combat the Roman soldiers who were coming to arrest Jesus.

In fact, when Peter used his sword to cut off someone’s ear, Jesus healed the ear and scolded Peter to put away his sword.

Jesus condemned weaponry by saying that all who use the sword will perish by the sword.

Those two swords were enough for Jesus to be reckoned among the transgressors. The Roman soldiers could see the swords and arrest Jesus for being an instigator of armed rebellion against the empire.

"Jesus reckoned among the transgressors" refers to the fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 53:12) where Jesus was treated, condemned, and executed as a common criminal, specifically by being crucified between two thieves. This act represents his deep identification with sinful humanity, substituting himself in the place of sinners to achieve atonement and reconciliation with God.


Luke 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.

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.

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

 

[NayborBear]

1 John 4

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. ...

Because this "trying/TESTING" of the "spirits" was NOT done? For whatever reason? Whether it be of fear?, or self deception: "God LOVES me TOO much to allow such a thing!"
Many (ahem) "believers" for quite SOME time? Have been "SNARED" into a "love trap!"
What's WORSE (for them?) Is that the Father has 'em DELUDED! To the point that they'd "BET THE FARM" on their being right! That's what it means to: "BELIEVE.........A LIE!"

(A honorific GASP emanates from the crowd)

But? Their "END" is not come YET!
Oh No! Because of their faith "IN CHRIST ALONE?"
They'll be "Held Over" for a thousand YEARS of "learning.........and BEING LEARNT"
But, as far as "reigning WITH Christ?"

I HOPE they get so mad over this they go STRAIGHT TO the Father DIRECTLY!
And just? ASK HIM!

 

[Anchorite]

 

[Gray_Joy]

Cutting off an ear, when the intent is to kill, is not “proficient” sword usage.

Have you ever wielded a true antique era sword?
I assure you, wielding a gladius or a machaira to to slice.thebear off the head of a man is a demonstration of proficiency.

Further,it so happened that strike was also allegorical to Mark 8:18. Having the ear to hear but does not hear.

Jesus scolded Peter, He did not thank Peter. Jesus did not say, “Strike again!” Jesus said, “Put away thy sword!”

Some people try to claim that Jesus wanted His disciples to arm themselves, to have weapons for self defense.

But when Jesus said buy a sword, and the disciples replied they had two swords, Jesus said that was enough.

Thus, the swords were not for self defense or for killing those who attack. Two swords would not be nearly enough to combat the Roman soldiers who were coming to arrest Jesus.

In fact, when Peter used his sword to cut off someone’s ear, Jesus healed the ear and scolded Peter to put away his sword.

Jesus condemned weaponry by saying that all who use the sword will perish by the sword.

Those two swords were enough for Jesus to be reckoned among the transgressors. The Roman soldiers could see the swords and arrest Jesus for being an instigator of armed rebellion against the empire.

"Jesus reckoned among the transgressors" refers to the fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 53:12) where Jesus was treated, condemned, and executed as a common criminal, specifically by being crucified between two thieves. This act represents his deep identification with sinful humanity, substituting himself in the place of sinners to achieve atonement and reconciliation with God.


Luke 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.

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.

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

Hold to your ideas.
I shall not continue to discuss the Bible with someone who does not respect what it teaches.

 

[Anchorite]

Hold to your ideas.
I shall not continue to discuss the Bible with someone who does not respect what it teaches.

You are the one trashing the many pacifist statements of Jesus.

You are the one telling Christians they can arm themselves and kill their enemies.

You are the one who doesn’t understand why martyrs did not defend themselves.

You cannot derive any of your violent malicious ideas from the New Testament.

 

[markalan]

You are the one trashing the many pacifist statements of Jesus.

You are the one telling Christians they can arm themselves and kill their enemies.

You are the one who doesn’t understand why martyrs did not defend themselves.

You cannot derive any of your violent malicious ideas from the New Testament.

I am wondering if your ideas about pacifism extend to the police and military using weapons in the course of their duty.

 

[markalan]

That's five of the eleven modern English translations of the bible I have on my E-Sword program that include "without a cause."

It seems clear to me that the phrase should be included.
You listed MKJV as well as NKJV ... I have not heard of the MKJV before.

 

[markalan]

Why?
What did Jesus do to offenders,enemies, in his first testimony? The Tanakh.

Do you think Jesus taught "an eye for an eye"?

As to so called Preppers,that's in the Bible too.

Proverbs 21:20 Precious treasure and oil are in a wise man's dwelling, but a foolish man devours it.

1Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

I am not against prepping ... in fact I have food & water stored for an unexpected event.
However, I don't see how I could keep this all for myself and not share it with others who were without.
I might feel differently if I had young children to feed.

 

[David Lamb]

No, we are in a war that is fought with guns AND one that isn’t.

Who do you mean by "we?" Christians? I for one am certainly not in a war fought with guns or other physical weapons. The bible makes clear that the Christian's warfare is a spiritual one.

 

[David Lamb]

That post avoids my question.

No it doesn't. You had asked: "Are you aware God's people throughout the Bible were armed with weapons?" Therefore, what Anchorite asked you to do is, in my view, a fair response to your question. He wrote: "So do tell us which New Testament believers were armed and used weapons to defend themselves." If, as you claim, God's people throughout the bible were armed with weapons, it should be easy for you to point to plenty of New Testament believers who armed themselves with physical weapons. Instead, we have statements that the Christian warfare is a spiritual one, that the Christians armour is likewise spiritual, and plenty of examples of believers being persecuted, or even killed for believing in Jesus Christ. When Stephen was stoned, did he take out a sword or a bow and arrow, or throw stones back at his attackers? No, he prayed for God to forgive his attackers:

(Act 7:59 NKJV) And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
(Act 7:60) Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Similarly when James was killed, or when Paul was beaten.

 

[David Lamb]

On a Tuesday … what a Strawman attempt to deny the violent history of the Bible.

Sorry, what has Tuesday got to do with it? And why is it a Strawman attempt? Yes, there is plenty of violence in the Bible, but the particular question under discussion is whether New Testament believers are ever said to have gone around retaliating against those who persecuted them by using physical weapons like swords.

 

[David Lamb]

It seems clear to me that the phrase should be included.
You listed MKJV as well as NKJV ... I have not heard of the MKJV before.

Thanks for the reply. "MKJV" apparently stands for the Modern King James Version, published in the 1960s. I don't know anything about it, and have not used it. It is just one of the translations available on my E-sword program.

 

[Wrangler]

Who do you mean by "we?" Christians? I for one am certainly not in a war fought with guns or other physical weapons. The bible makes clear that the Christian's warfare is a spiritual one.

You’re taking God’s word out of context. No one is denying there is a spiritual warfare. The overly-spiritualized deny there is a need to defend Christian nations with guns. The Bible doesn’t say we fight against tooth decay. Yet, most Christians today brush their teeth.

The Bible contains principles we live by and these principles need to be applied and extrapolated to situations beyond Biblical times, e.g., the emergence of Christian nations, starting with the Roman Empire. Now, this thread focuses on self-defense. What reason would anyone tell someone they should arm themselves? Best to start with the general principle, then apply it to a given context.

I suggest the historical precedence of millions of Christians over the centuries defending themselves with arms is determinative of the proper Christian response to physical danger.

 

[Wrangler]

Sorry, what has Tuesday got to do with it? And why is it a Strawman attempt?

Tuesday is an example of an unnecessary qualifier designed to create a Strawman.

1. The Bible is filled with violence and even God commanding it.
2. Because that doesn’t support your position, you invoke only a portion of the Bible that doesn’t support your opponents position. That is, NT text only.
3. To show the absurdity of your Strawman, I use a Judo technique; except the thrust of your unnecessary qualifier and add to it. What NT text supports violence on a Tuesday?

The answer is none but that doesn’t change the reality of point 1, The Bible is filled with violence and even God commanding it.

 

[Justified]

George Patton (and me!)

On fighting and dying:
"Nobody ever won a war by DYING for his God! He won it by making the other poor dummy die for "his" god!"
(toned down and paraphrased, and reinterpreted (by me), for the "G-audience")

On those who do die:
"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived."

Just in case Matthias, you were under the ILLUSION that we are "NOT IN a WAR!"

And HAVE BEEN! For a LOT LONGER than you or I or ANYONE else "sucking air" has been around!

George Patton? That’s your response to a believer asking if “Christians should use firearms to help stop the spread of Islam?”?

If you are a Christian, your response should have been an appeal to Scripture.

 

[Justified]

You’re taking God’s word out of context. No one is denying there is a spiritual warfare. The overly-spiritualized deny there is a need to defend Christian nations with guns.

And yet the only talk of warfare for Christians is that it is not against flesh and blood. Perhaps you don’t understand that everything that goes on in this world has spiritual elements behind it; people are either for Christ or against him, and so are influenced in all that they do.

The Bible doesn’t say we fight against tooth decay. Yet, most Christians today brush their teeth.

False analogy.

The Bible contains principles we live by and these principles need to be applied and extrapolated to situations beyond Biblical times, e.g., the emergence of Christian nations, starting with the Roman Empire. Now, this thread focuses on self-defense. What reason would anyone tell someone they should arm themselves? Best to start with the general principle, then apply it to a given context.

Defense against robbers and such, not persecution. The general principle for believers is that we don’t fight and flesh and blood. From there we look at how we are to fight: through worship, through prayer, and through proclaiming the gospel.

There is not one single example or command in the NT for believers to take up arms and attack their enemies. There are, however, numerous commands to love ones enemies and to not tale vengeance as that is God’s prerogative. But you never have addressed those passages, despite repeated requests you do so.

I suggest the historical precedence of millions of Christians over the centuries defending themselves with arms is determinative of the proper Christian response to physical danger.

And yet what does the Bible say? Jesus said to flee persecution, not to fight.

Tuesday is an example of an unnecessary qualifier designed to create a Strawman.

Best to not use “Tuesday.” It simply doesn’t work and is unnecessarily confusing.

1. The Bible is filled with violence and even God commanding it.

Yes, but not only is it not once commanded for followers of Christ, we are told to repay evil with blessing and leave room for God’s vengeance.

1. Because that doesn’t support your position, you invoke only a portion of the Bible that doesn’t support your opponents position. That is, NT text only.

That’s what you’re doing. Again, I and others have repeatedly posted NT passages proving your position to be in serious error, but you completely ignore those, favouring the OT passages which have zero bearing on how followers of Christ are supposed to act. Your understanding of context is very deficient.

1. To show the absurdity of your Strawman, I use a Judo technique; except the thrust of your unnecessary qualifier and add to it. What NT text supports violence on a Tuesday?

It doesn’t work. Save it for Judo.

The answer is none but that doesn’t change the reality of point 1, The Bible is filled with violence and even God commanding it.

Never for followers of Christ.

 

[Wrangler]

but the particular question under discussion is whether New Testament believers are ever said to have gone around retaliating against those who persecuted them by using physical weapons like swords.

Again, that’s a Strawman. Fact is, Jesus told his followers to arm themselves. That implies using physical violence as needed. And then there is Revelation, where Jesus kills more people than ever in history by violently throwing people into the Lake of Fire.

 

[MatthewG]

Again, that’s a Strawman. Fact is, Jesus told his followers to arm themselves. That implies using physical violence as needed. And then there is Revelation, where Jesus kills more people than ever in history by violently throwing people into the Lake of Fire.

I hear what you’re saying, but I think the way you’re framing it leaves out some important context. I’m not trying to “win” anything here — I could be wrong, and I want people to think for themselves and test everything, just like Scripture says (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So here’s the fuller picture as I understand it:

1. Jesus telling the disciples to buy a sword wasn’t a command to use violence. When they showed Him two swords, He said, “It is enough” (Luke 22:38). Two swords are not enough for self‑defense against Roman soldiers. But they were enough to fulfill prophecy:

“He was numbered with the transgressors.” —Isaiah 53:12

And when Peter actually used the sword, Jesus immediately rebuked him:

“Put your sword back… for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” —Matthew 26:52

If Jesus intended physical violence, that moment would have been the time to fight — but He shut it down.

2. Jesus consistently rejected violence as the way of His kingdom. He taught:

• “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9)
• “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, my servants would fight” (John 18:36)
• “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44)

So whatever the swords meant, they didn’t mean “go use violence.”

3. Revelation’s imagery is symbolic, not literal physical violence. Even people who disagree on interpretation agree on this: Revelation is a book of symbols, visions, and apocalyptic language — not a newspaper report.

Jesus “strikes the nations” with a sword coming out of His mouth (Revelation 19:15). That’s not a physical weapon — it’s His word (Hebrews 4:12).

The “Lake of Fire” is also symbolic imagery used throughout apocalyptic literature to describe final judgment, not Jesus physically murdering people.

4. The heart of Jesus’ teaching is not violence but transformation. He said:

“The Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” —Luke 9:56

Even when His disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven — literal violence — Jesus rebuked them.

5. People should not take my word for any of this. I’m not asking anyone to believe me. I’m encouraging people to read, study, question, and think for themselves.

No preacher, no teacher, no forum commenter — including me — has spiritual authority over anyone. Jesus said:

“You have one Teacher, the Christ.” —Matthew 23:10

So if I’m wrong, let Scripture correct me. If I’m right, let Scripture confirm it. Either way, the truth stands on its own.

 

[Wrangler]

1. Jesus telling the disciples to buy a sword wasn’t a command to use violence. When they showed Him two swords, He said, “It is enough” (Luke 22:38). Two swords are not enough for self‑defense against Roman soldiers.

No one said the swords were to use against the Roman soldiers attempting to arrest Jesus.

Not sure how you allocate buying sword fully for prophecy sake. Jesus telling the disciples to buy a sword implies using violence as necessary. Why would anyone tell someone to arm themselves? It’s not a mystery.