Literal Swords vs Spiritual Weapons

[The_Patriot21]

enoob, without the law, there is no need for grace. I like people, who always want to focus on grace, and the needing of salvation from sins, but want to ignore the very thing that defines sin-and that is the law (Romans 7:7) and ignore the fact that all scripture is profitable for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) We are not bound by the law-I already stated that. But, the law does define, what is sin, and the sin, is the very reason that we need grace. So you can sit here, and ignore the OT law all you want-but your missing out on the very need for grace, and ignoring a huge part of what the Bible teaches. To ignore romans 7:7 and 2 timothy 3:16 is to ignore the very words of God.

[enoob57]

enoob, without the law, there is no need for grace. I like people, who always want to focus on grace, and the needing of salvation from sins, but want to ignore the very thing that defines sin-and that is the law (Romans 7:7) and ignore the fact that all scripture is profitable for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) We are not bound by the law-I already stated that. But, the law does define, what is sin, and the sin, is the very reason that we need grace. So you can sit here, and ignore the OT law all you want-but your missing out on the very need for grace, and ignoring a huge part of what the Bible teaches. To ignore romans 7:7 and 2 timothy 3:16 is to ignore the very words of God.

wow what a rant! How does any of this address the dispensational boundaries of grace and law? Love, Steven

[The_Patriot21]

Its not a rant. And it addresses them. Perhaps read what I said. We do not live under the law, we live under grace. Works, or following the law, will not get us into heaven. Thats a fact. However, the law does show us what sin is, what is appropriate and what is. Thanks, for twisting my words though.

[enoob57]

It is simple friend- Christ is our example of how to live the Grace period He has provided... It is not

with carnal weapon but spiritual weapons provided by Him in The Holy Spirit...

2 Cor 10:3-6

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare

are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high

thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience

of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.

NKJV

When we totally die to self we are no longer of the first birth agenda but have began an alien exist with Spirit!

Pattern your life after Christ's for it is the only life that 'IS' acceptable to Him! Love, Steven

[BlessedByTheBest]

If He was speaking figuratively in Luke 22:35-41, why did Jesus ask them if they had swords, and say that it was enough when they said yes, and why did the Apostle Peter have a sword in the garden? In any other book we read, if a person in the story asks another person if they have a sword, and they say yes, we take it literally, yet we doubt that in the Bible? food for thought.

thanks patriot, i will try to share with you what i have received in these verses.

firstly, i do not see how Christ merely asked if they had swords. there is much more there.

i see how He conveyed the message to His disciples that the nature of their ministry was about to drastically change, and in doing so suggested they begin to think of preparation.

He reminded them of how from the time they were called by Him to leave homes, family, and personal effects, and follow Him...they have wanted for nothing.

they either failed to realize, or could not accept what their beloved Master, the Son of God, was about to endure..even though He had informed them that He would be leaving them.

things were about to change.

Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

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.

Luk 22:37 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.

still in unbelief, denial, or rebellion, they carnally discerned what Jesus was suggesting.. Christ, God in the flesh, knowing that the prophecy must be fulfilled, understandingly knows that it is too great a burden for them to yet bear..and simply responds..

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

would you care to share what your view of these passages is, if He was speaking figuratively?

love to you.

[The_Patriot21]

I don't see how he was speaking figuratively blessed, I really don't thats what Im saying. In those passages, the context suggests real, literal swords. There may be more to what He was trying to teach, and He certainly used the swords, I think as an example to teach, like later on with Peter, on when not to use one, but they were actual literal swords. I cannot think of anyway where they could be figurative swords in that passage without taking it completly out of context, and putting my own beliefs into it. If your seeing something Im not, then say so, but I don't see how Jesus could be talking about figurative swords here, from what Im seeing, they are actual swords-the only question is what the purpose of them being there is.

And enoob. While I agree with your statement we need to live as Christ does, but your still ignoring Romans 7:7 and 2 Timothy 3:16. You can't live as Christ would, unless you know what Christ has taught. Christ has taught us a great many things-He gave us the entire Bible so that we can learn how to live like Christ. If we could follow Christ from a few verse, then there would be no need for the OT or even the law to be included in the final canon, or for romans 7:7 or 2 Timothy 3:16. The entire Bible, law and everything, is there, to help us live like Christ would. The principles of self defense, and defending others, is not a secular thing, they are Biblical principles.

[Elhanan]

let's refocus here, just in case things go any further astray.

this thread is not about the condemning or the absolving of weapons outside of the context of the passages.

in context, the possession of a weapon was neither condoned or discouraged by Christ. in context, the possession of one was a suggestion. in context, the untimely attack upon the soldier was not in self-defense, and the weapon's use was rebuked.

but this is all besides the point, because while the sword may be the object of this discussion, Christ, is the essence of The Word.

so if one chooses to respond to option #3 i have proposed, then please keep in mind that the purpose of this discussion is to share our views of what we can learn from what Christ has revealed in these passages of Luke 22.

for what it's worth, it is my understanding that Christ was speaking figuratively(as if he needed defense). and in the midst of quick-tempered violence, He exemplifies restoration, and regenerates what man destroys.

thank you all for your comments.

Jesus did not "suggest" to his disciples to get a sword; he commanded that they sell their cloaks and get a sword instead. When Peter hacked the guy's ear off, it is certainly likely that his motive was self defense in order to protect Jesus. While Jesus rebukes Peter for his rash action, he does not tell Peter to get rid of his sword but simply instructs him to put it back in place. How one can construe this passage as figurative only does injustice to the narrative as the narrative gives us the historical record of Jesus' apprehension. Therefore it is appropriate and justifiable to use this passage as a reference point as to whether Jesus condoned the possession and use of weapons for the believer.

[enoob57]

let's refocus here, just in case things go any further astray.

this thread is not about the condemning or the absolving of weapons outside of the context of the passages.

in context, the possession of a weapon was neither condoned or discouraged by Christ. in context, the possession of one was a suggestion. in context, the untimely attack upon the soldier was not in self-defense, and the weapon's use was rebuked.

but this is all besides the point, because while the sword may be the object of this discussion, Christ, is the essence of The Word.

so if one chooses to respond to option #3 i have proposed, then please keep in mind that the purpose of this discussion is to share our views of what we can learn from what Christ has revealed in these passages of Luke 22.

for what it's worth, it is my understanding that Christ was speaking figuratively(as if he needed defense). and in the midst of quick-tempered violence, He exemplifies restoration, and regenerates what man destroys.

thank you all for your comments.

Jesus did not "suggest" to his disciples to get a sword; he commanded that they sell their cloaks and get a sword instead. When Peter hacked the guy's ear off, it is certainly likely that his motive was self defense in order to protect Jesus. While Jesus rebukes Peter for his rash action, he does not tell Peter to get rid of his sword but simply instructs him to put it back in place. How one can construe this passage as figurative only does injustice to the narrative as the narrative gives us the historical record of Jesus' apprehension. Therefore it is appropriate and justifiable to use this passage as a reference point as to whether Jesus condoned the possession and use of weapons for the believer.

2 Cor 10:3-6

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty

in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God,

bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience

is fulfilled.

NKJV

the whole council of God... Love, Steven

[The_Patriot21]

Noob I say it again, thats not the whole council of God. otherwise, there would be no reason for the rest of the Bible. I mean serious, how do you know what disobedience is without the law? answer that question from those 3 verses.

[BlessedByTheBest]

I don't see how he was speaking figuratively blessed, I really don't thats what Im saying. In those passages, the context suggests real, literal swords. There may be more to what He was trying to teach, and He certainly used the swords, I think as an example to teach, like later on with Peter, on when not to use one, but they were actual literal swords. I cannot think of anyway where they could be figurative swords in that passage without taking it completely out of context, and putting my own beliefs into it. If your seeing something Im not, then say so, but I don't see how Jesus could be talking about figurative swords here, from what Im seeing, they are actual swords-the only question is what the purpose of them being there is.

well i think i would not be sane if i were attempting to say that the swords weren't physical, actual swords brother.

1) the point of my view, ( and of the thread title ), is that the possession/use of the weapons is not the focus of these passages. i believe we can at least come to that agreement. yes or no?

therefore, to utilize these passages to justify the possession/use of weapons, is to completely take them out of context.

to me it is obvious in this narrative that, just as with everything else, the Lord utilizes different circumstances to teach and bring us closer to Him.

i am not seeing anything you're not, but perhaps i am looking beyond the moment.

Jesus did not "suggest" to his disciples to get a sword; he commanded that they sell their cloaks and get a sword instead. When Peter hacked the guy's ear off, it is certainly likely that his motive was self defense in order to protect Jesus. While Jesus rebukes Peter for his rash action, he does not tell Peter to get rid of his sword but simply instructs him to put it back in place. How one can construe this passage as figurative only does injustice to the narrative as the narrative gives us the historical record of Jesus' apprehension. Therefore it is appropriate and justifiable to use this passage as a reference point as to whether Jesus condoned the possession and use of weapons for the believer.

these are some very valid points Elhanan, bless you and welcome to the discussion.

respectfully, the actual narrative of the record of His capture is not in question. it is the intent of the Lord in suggesting each man do whatever is necessary to prepare for what is to come, figuratively speaking.

literally speaking, do you believe they all had enough time to go sell their cloaks and purchase a blade?

love to you.