Swords And Confusion

[rosie321]

Luke 22: 36-38

During the last supper gathering Christ tells the disciples to take their money and buy a sword.

then one of the followers takes the sword and cuts off the guards ear.

Christ then says Matthew 26:51-52 Put up again they sword into his place...........

Curious as to others thoughts.

Why do you think he asked them use their money to get the swords?

Why was the follower rebuked? Might he have been doing what he thought was correct given the previous instruction?

[orrinjelo]

I taught some Muslims who questioned about this. My guess (since I really never studied the topic thoroughly) is that the swords were for guarding only when Jesus was in the garden suffering the atonement--only so no one could interfere. However, to attack the oncoming party once it was all done, that's stupid, and when the one apostle cut off the guy's ear, he just didn't understand why he had the sword. It was only for that time.

[sixpacktr]

Taking the whole thing into consideration, I think what Jesus was telling them was that from then on they would no longer have his protection. Earlier, he had told the disciples going on a mission to take no "purse or scrip" but now he was telling them to have such. The sword was the same way. I feel he was saying that the time was coming that they would need to protect themselves, which hadn't yet come. Then they, like always, took it too literally and said, Hey, we got two here! to which the Savior replied "that's enough" or IOW, you're missing the point once again, but you'll get it later.

The Savior's ministry could not be accomplished thru violence by his followers to protect him. He had to be a voluntary sacrifice.

[rosie321]

Taking the whole thing into consideration, I think what Jesus was telling them was that from then on they would no longer have his protection. Earlier, he had told the disciples going on a mission to take no "purse or scrip" but now he was telling them to have such. The sword was the same way. I feel he was saying that the time was coming that they would need to protect themselves, which hadn't yet come. Then they, like always, took it too literally and said, Hey, we got two here! to which the Savior replied "that's enough" or IOW, you're missing the point once again, but you'll get it later.

The Savior's ministry could not be accomplished thru violence by his followers to protect him. He had to be a voluntary sacrifice.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by "they would no longer have his protection." Hasn't the Lord always provided a way.? Through all scriptural history they had the Lord/God to turn to for guidance and recieved protection. Did you mean in different words. New lesson time? How long is that lesson on for? Yes it did look like they misunderstood and tried to hard.

Take no purse or scrip .... but now he was telling them to.

Do you mean that to be why apostles are now paid. Since they don't work in the traditional sense but need to provide for themselves it makes them independent and are more protected. I'm used to LDS talking about that line no purse or scrip to discourage paid clergy from other faiths or to help encourage support for missionaries.

Also in terms of purse or script -they did carry one around that Judas stole from-correct?

I taught some Muslims who questioned about this. My guess (since I really never studied the topic thoroughly) is that the swords were for guarding only when Jesus was in the garden suffering the atonement--only so no one could interfere. However, to attack the oncoming party once it was all done, that's stupid, and when the one apostle cut off the guy's ear, he just didn't understand why he had the sword. It was only for that time.

Interesting idea. How do you come to that conclusion that it was just for that time? What did they do with them afterwards? Or was it just a teaching example for him in their getting the sword and taking it out. To stand guard. Why would they need swords. If all the events in the garden were meant to happen wouldn't a way have been provided to stop Judas and associates from finding him?

It was kind of strange to read of Christ instructing his apostles to purchase sword (possess) and carry them. It goes against what most people think about him. Usually theres the God of peace and love. Not one instructing his followers to become armed (and dangerous as demonstrated )

Wonder what he'd think of gun control Would he be pro or against by these verses?

[MaidservantX]

I think God is pro protecting one's family and one's nation (and one's property also). If you can do it with your ninja powers, well then.

[sixpacktr]

Rosie,

Sorry, I was hallucinating when I wrote that post, I think.

What I meant by "his protection" was that his time had not yet come, and therefore the apostles, simply by being with him, were protected from harm because of that. Once Christ was taken and crucified, that protection was lost (kind of like when it was revealed to Joseph Smith that his days were numbered and wouldn't be any longer or shorter) and they were then hounded and beaten and killed.

[Traveler]

Luke 22: 36-38

During the last supper gathering Christ tells the disciples to take their money and buy a sword.

then one of the followers takes the sword and cuts off the guards ear.

Christ then says Matthew 26:51-52 Put up again they sword into his place...........

Curious as to others thoughts.

Why do you think he asked them use their money to get the swords?

Why was the follower rebuked? Might he have been doing what he thought was correct given the previous instruction?

There is interesting symbolism in a sword. I would suggest that if one has a digital copy of the scriptures that they search the scriptures for sword. Pay particular attention to scriptures that use the symbolism of a sword (double edged or turned in more directions than one) in connection to a fire or flame.

The Traveler

[rosie321]

Rosie,

Sorry, I was hallucinating when I wrote that post, I think.

What I meant by "his protection" was that his time had not yet come, and therefore the apostles, simply by being with him, were protected from harm because of that. Once Christ was taken and crucified, that protection was lost (kind of like when it was revealed to Joseph Smith that his days were numbered and wouldn't be any longer or shorter) and they were then hounded and beaten and killed.

I think God is pro protecting one's family and one's nation (and one's property also). If you can do it with your ninja powers, well then.

The whole idea of Christ asking his disciples use their money to take swords really hit me for the first time. I've read those verses so many times. For the first time though it really caught my attention. The things you always hear about Christ is peace, atonement and love for the most part. This just seems so out there from all those messages. It just really caught my attention.

It paints a different picture (not quite sure yet what the new picture looks like).

I realize especially from LDS concepts that we need to provide for ourselves, do all that we can do. So the same would probably be applied to protecting ourselves as able. Its strange to see Christ saying get your weapon.

On the other hand aren't we supposed to trust in the Lord to protect us? So many verses and speakers I have heard have spoken to that. Things will go the way that they should. If it was meant for Christ to die a way would have been prepared in the garden where no one would have been able to harm him. We don't need to worry. Just trust.

Its a very interesting contrast.

Also it might be another piece into the whys of Peters denial. It might have made him more afraid to stick up for Christ. He was already put on guard by Christ asking him to get the sword. Then he sees the saviour taken away. Then he's asked if he's one of Christs followers.... Its understandable why he'd deny.

<div class='quotemain'>

Luke 22: 36-38

During the last supper gathering Christ tells the disciples to take their money and buy a sword.

then one of the followers takes the sword and cuts off the guards ear.

Christ then says Matthew 26:51-52 Put up again they sword into his place...........

Curious as to others thoughts.

Why do you think he asked them use their money to get the swords?

Why was the follower rebuked? Might he have been doing what he thought was correct given the previous instruction?

There is interesting symbolism in a sword. I would suggest that if one has a digital copy of the scriptures that they search the scriptures for sword. Pay particular attention to scriptures that use the symbolism of a sword (double edged or turned in more directions than one) in connection to a fire or flame.

The Traveler

Do you mean this was more a teaching tool? Explain more.

[rosie321]

Also isaiah talks about beating swords into plowshares etc. What things were going to happen. Was this Christs way of saying this was not that time.

Christ came and fulfilled a lot of prophecies. Kind of going with what other posters have said was he preparing them for the idea that Isaiahs prophecies would not be fulfilled then as they might be expecting?

Christ seemed to have an urgency in his request. More than just an object lesson in the garden where he tells them to put away the sword. Also I don't know that the double edged sword applies here.

Open to any and all thoughts