Should I buy a sword?

[Jericho]

That sounds good, but compare the minuscule number of murders involving firearms here in the UK, where very few people own guns, with the much larger number of deaths, including some horrific mass shootings, involving firearms in the USA.

The UK also has some of the highest knife-homicide rates in Western Europe per-capita.

 

[lforrest]

The UK also has some of the highest knife-homicide rates in Western Europe per-capita.

Guns also even-up the odds a little, so that physical size and strength is no longer a huge advantage.

 

[Heart2Soul]

So, how do you reconcile your opinion to 1 Cor 6:3, in judging this world?

This is exactly opposite of the Word saying "do not judge, lest ye be judged yourself." Matthew 7:1-3.

So how do you reconcile these two separate teachings...one by Paul and the other by Jesus?

 

[Wrangler]

This is exactly opposite of the Word saying "do not judge, lest ye be judged yourself." Matthew 7:1-3.

Nope. Not one little bit but I almost didn’t notice you deflecting from my question.

If you read Matthew 7:1-3 in modern English it is clear the text is speaking against hypocrisy, you will be judged by the same standard by which you judge. This doesn’t mean don’t judge at all.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Nope. Not one little bit but I almost didn’t notice you deflecting from my question.

If you read Matthew 7:1-3 in modern English it is clear the text is speaking against hypocrisy, you will be judged by the same standard by which you judge. This doesn’t mean don’t judge at all.

Not convinced yet..
So with judgment do you also carry out the punishment?

 

[Wrangler]

Not convinced yet.

Then you need to more deeply study Matthew 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 6:3.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Then you need to more deeply study Matthew 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 6:3.

I revisit scriptures all the time and I just do not agree with the OP about picking up a real sword with the intent of using it. I carry the Sword of Truth and the Shield of Faith. Those defense weapons have served me well.

 

[Gray_Joy]

I revisit scriptures all the time and I just do not agree with the OP about picking up a real sword with the intent of using it. I carry the Sword of Truth and the Shield of Faith. Those defense weapons have served me well.

Peter wielded an actual sword in Gethsemane. He and the other Disciples had swords. Because Jesus commanded them to buy them.

Of course we're free to not own weapons. But,it isn't what Jesus taught us.

 

[Wrangler]

I revisit scriptures all the time and I just do not agree with the OP about picking up a real sword with the intent of using it. I carry the Sword of Truth and the Shield of Faith. Those defense weapons have served me well.

I have car insurance AND health insurance. My agent says I don’t have to choose one over the other.

 

[Anchorite]

Peter wielded an actual sword in Gethsemane. He and the other Disciples had swords. Because Jesus commanded them to buy them.

Of course we're free to not own weapons. But,it isn't what Jesus taught us.

And what happened when Peter used his sword? Jesus rebuked him.

Why did Jesus say to buy a sword, then say two was enough?

The two 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.



Matthew 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.”


John 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[NayborBear]

That sounds good, but compare the minuscule number of murders involving firearms here in the UK, where very few people own guns, with the much larger number of deaths, including some horrific mass shootings, involving firearms in the USA.

That just makes THIS? That "So Much EASIER" and a LOT LESS "bloody" for them!:

 

[Lambano]

Peter wielded an actual sword in Gethsemane. He and the other Disciples had swords. Because Jesus commanded them to buy them.

No. They didn't go out and buy swords after dinner. (Would the sword shops have even been open at night?) The text said they already HAD swords.

Josephus and other historical sources say it was normal in that time to carry weapons for protection from wild animals and lestes (armed bandits like Barabbas that preyed on unwary travelers). What was not normal was when Jesus sent the disciples out without money, suitcase or weapons. (Note: Mark says Jesus permitted them to have walking sticks, which can double as a weapon if necessary; Matthew says they were not even allowed that.)

 

[Lambano]

I asked Copilot; here's what it said:

Why weapons were commonly carried​ 1. Travel was dangerous​ Banditry on roads was a constant threat. Josephus and other sources describe unrest, taxation pressure, and local skirmishes. A short sword or large knife doubled as a tool and a defensive item for travelers and shepherds. 2. Roman law allowed small sidearms​ Rome prohibited subject peoples from stockpiling military weapons, but small knives and short swords under ~2 Roman feet were tolerated. Patrols focused on arms caches, not individuals. 3. Jewish legal tradition permitted defensive force​ Rabbinic and biblical traditions recognized the legitimacy of defending oneself, especially at night against burglars (e.g., Exodus 22:2; Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:6). This made carrying a blade socially acceptable. 4. Political unrest made weapons more common​ Groups like the Zealots and Sicarii (literally “dagger-men”) carried concealed daggers (sicae), showing how widespread small blades were. What kinds of weapons were typical?​ Machaira — short curved sword, ~18–20 inches; common for civilians. Sica — concealed dagger, 6–12 inches; used by Sicarii. Large knives / agricultural blades — used for work and easily repurposed for defense. Roman gladius — uncommon for civilians due to cost and restrictions. Archaeology supports this: short swords have been found in places like Gamla, Capernaum, and Masada, including in ordinary homes.

My comment: While Mark and Matthew name one of the Twelve "Simon the Canaanite"; Luke calls him "Simon the Zealot". And some historians speculate that Judas Iscariot's surname means "Judas the Siccarius". See note 4 above about the Zealots and Siccarii. So, yes, Jesus hung out with some interesting characters.

 

[Lambano]

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.

Somebody had to undo the damage Peter caused.

 

[Lambano]

The two 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. 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.

I gotta correct this. These were not Roman soldiers. Mark 14:43 and synoptic parallels say this was a mob assembled by the Chief Priests and Scribes to arrest Jesus and were undoubtably Jewish. The Sanhedrin later turned him over to the Romans.

"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.

First, Isaiah uses the word פֹּשְׁעִים, "pash'im", meaning rebels. Luke uses the LXX translation "anomois", meaning "lawless", and the English translation, "transgressors" further obscures the original meaning.

Second, Jesus was NOT executed as a common criminal. Crucifixion was the punishment for rebels against Roman rule. The key reason Jesus was executed as a rebel against the Empire wasn't some armed uprising in Gethsemane that Jesus immediately put a stop to; it was what was written on the titulus above Jesus's head at the crucifixion: KING OF THE JEWS. Claiming to be a King in competition with Caesar.

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.

The fact that Jesus had to do damage control for what Peter did tells me that Jesus did NOT intend for Peter to perform some street theater to fulfill Isaiah's prophesy when He started talking about swords. Jesus Himself was going to do that before Pilate. He was talking about something else, and Peter of course misunderstood.