Literal Swords vs Spiritual Weapons

[enoob57]

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 whole council of God...a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace. this is interesting knowing The NT wasn't even seen by this man writing!

Ecc 3:8 from the dispensation of law-

Matt 28:18-20 from the dispensation of Grace

Love, Steven

[The_Patriot21]

and what about Romans 7:7 enoob.

[enoob57]

and what about Romans 7:7 enoob.

Ok Pat out of respect for you testimony of love for our Lord!

****************** this context of Scripture is sin's advantage in the Law***********************

Rom 7:7-12

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law.

For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the

commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the

law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to

bring death.

the simplest summary of this is- when the law was given we were already dead in our sins we just didn't know it!

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy,

and the commandment holy and just and good.

NKJV

Now by legislation of writ I know I cannot comply to it or be holy!

Thus showing by God's standard we are all condemned and another

way is needed else all perish... Love, Steven

[The_Patriot21]

Noob, while I hold that part of what your saying is true, that that verse is telling us we are not bound by the law, but it is also stating, clearly, that we do not know what sin is, except through the law. How do we know that covetousness is sin? by the law. How do we know that adultry is sin? by the law. How do we know that murder is sin? by the law. How do we know that lying is a sin? by the law. How do we know that homosexuality is a sin? the law. We are not bound by the law, you are correct, by the law we are all condemned, we cannot uphold it, that is where grace comes in, but the law, defines what sin is. We canot take those 3 verses out of corinthians, and say we know all there is to following Christ, by those 3 verses, otherwise He would have only given us those 3 verses. No, He gave us the entire Bible, law included, to help us draw closer to Him, to walk better in His path. Like 2 Timothy 3:16 repeats,

¹⁶ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So, by saying that we can just ignore the law completly, that it makes no difference and we can't learn from it, is to ignore scripture. the law is there to define what is sin, and what is not sin. By the law, we are all condemned, you are correct, by grace, we are saved. Christ did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. God didn't get rid of the law, it is still in place, so are the principles of protecting our families, and those who cannot protect themselves, we are just no longer bound by it.

We need to take the law, and do our best to follow it-or at least the principles of it-not because we have to to get to heaven, because then we would all fall short, but because we love God and want to serve Him, and if we truly want to serve Him, then we need to learn what pleases God, and what displeases Him-otherwords, what is sin, and what is not, and the way to do that, is by reading and learning from the entiretly of the Bible. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe, and what you don't.

[Elhanan]

[

the whole council of God... Love, Steven

the whole council of God...a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace. this is interesting knowing The NT wasn't even seen by this man writing!

Ecc 3:8 from the dispensation of law-

Matt 28:18-20 from the dispensation of Grace

Love, Steven

Just further proof that the Bible is divinely inspired as the writings of different authors at different periods of time harmonize with each other and together constitute the whole council of God. Since you insist on making dispensational distinctions, I hope you are not claiming that they are contradictory as Jesus did not abolish the law but came to fulfill it.

[enoob57]

Noob, while I hold that part of what your saying is true, that that verse is telling us we are not bound by the law, but it is also stating, clearly, that we do not know what sin is, except through the law. How do we know that covetousness is sin? by the law. How do we know that adultry is sin? by the law. How do we know that murder is sin? by the law. How do we know that lying is a sin? by the law. How do we know that homosexuality is a sin? the law. We are not bound by the law, you are correct, by the law we are all condemned, we cannot uphold it, that is where grace comes in, but the law, defines what sin is. We canot take those 3 verses out of corinthians, and say we know all there is to following Christ, by those 3 verses, otherwise He would have only given us those 3 verses. No, He gave us the entire Bible, law included, to help us draw closer to Him, to walk better in His path. Like 2 Timothy 3:16 repeats,

¹⁶ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So, by saying that we can just ignore the law completely, that it makes no difference and we can't learn from it, is to ignore scripture. the law is there to define what is sin, and what is not sin. By the law, we are all condemned, you are correct, by grace, we are saved. Christ did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. God didn't get rid of the law, it is still in place, so are the principles of protecting our families, and those who cannot protect themselves, we are just no longer bound by it.

All that was of the first birth must remain suspect within us ... it is filled with leaven of sin- all of it. Now our New Birth is from God and all things are made new

Rev 21:5-8

5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful."

6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life

freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.

NKJV

This new and old Paul speaks of in Rom 7 into 8- so clearly you cannot go backwards in God's Instruction Book but forwards only!

the real question about pride of life is where is it from? The old or new? God searches the heart for trust built from faith formed out

of His Word- from which Paul speaks

2 Cor 5:1-8

5 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal

in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having

been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed,

but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has

given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from

the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be

present with the Lord.

NKJV

if we believe to be with the Lord 'IS' gain Phil 1:19-26 ... it is quite telling isn't it - to hold such a noble effort to protect and keep life here(?)

Don't forget I wanted to talk about crossing dispensational lines- when in fact they thought life was to remain here (this old place)...

In this we find the true freedom where no longer the world dictates to us, God's Son's, what we are to do when it blows its ugly whistle

and proclaims we gonna kill you unless you kill us! Cleaverly through pride of life(this life) we war to remain but then how is this accomplished-

Matt 16:25-27

25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he

gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the

glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

NKJV

We need to take the law, and do our best to follow it-or at least the principles of it-not because we have to to get to heaven, because then we would all fall short, but because we love God and want to serve Him, and if we truly want to serve Him, then we need to learn what pleases God, and what displeases Him-otherwords, what is sin, and what is not, and the way to do that, is by reading and learning from the entiretly of the Bible. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe, and what you don't.

Pat, God The Holy Spirit -if you are willing to die to the old parts of yourself will write His Law on the fleshy parts of your heart so that it is no longer

letter but Love straight from God's own heart. A love which loves all men without respect of persons not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance...

all that must be done is reckon the old dead and receive the new in it's place... True Freedom requires no earthy effort just engage God's promises through faith! Love, Steven

[enoob57]

[

the whole council of God... Love, Steven

the whole council of God...a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace. this is interesting knowing The NT wasn't even seen by this man writing!

Ecc 3:8 from the dispensation of law-

Matt 28:18-20 from the dispensation of Grace

Love, Steven

Just further proof that the Bible is divinely inspired as the writings of different authors at different periods of time harmonize with each other and together constitute the whole council of God. Since you insist on making dispensational distinctions, I hope you are not claiming that they are contradictory as Jesus did not abolish the law but came to fulfill it.

let's stay in the reality of context and leave spiritualization's and fanciful imaginations at bay!

You cited OT passage and brought that forward to a present day support- yet they could not see anything but that OT period...

Christ came and brought truth into the confusion of sin in this place Jn 18:37... that truth is seen here in this age

John 18:36

36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight,

so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

NKJV

Love, Steven

[Elhanan]

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.

Thank you for your gracious response to my comment. I think Scripture can have at times a dual meaning - both figurative and literal - depending on its specific context as well as harmony with the rest of Scripture. At other times it is one or the other. Your question is how should we properly address this Lukan passage? I don't know if all the disciples had time to sell their cloaks and buy swords - better not to speculate because the scriptures are silent on this question and it is preferable not to argue from silence. However, the text does state that the disciples responded to Jesus that they had two swords when Jesus issued these instructions to which Jesus replied "it is enough." If Jesus' intent was figurative in nature, then I would think that he would have take the opportunity to clarify to them that he wasn't talking about literal swords but he didn't do that. Instead he allows Peter to carry a sword which he eventually uses to lop off an ear. I would think that if Jesus didn't mean literal swords, he would have certainly explained it to Peter at that pivotal moment when someone's blood was shed. Lastly if one thinks that the sword is figurative, one would also have to ask what does a figurative purse and a figurative bag mean as Jesus also instructed them to take those items with them as well. Just from a practical standpoint, the figurative view means that his disciples would just be wearing the clothes on their back.

[Elhanan]

[

the whole council of God... Love, Steven

the whole council of God...a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace. this is interesting knowing The NT wasn't even seen by this man writing!

Ecc 3:8 from the dispensation of law-

Matt 28:18-20 from the dispensation of Grace

Love, Steven

Just further proof that the Bible is divinely inspired as the writings of different authors at different periods of time harmonize with each other and together constitute the whole council of God. Since you insist on making dispensational distinctions, I hope you are not claiming that they are contradictory as Jesus did not abolish the law but came to fulfill it.

let's stay in the reality of context and leave spiritualization's and fanciful imaginations at bay!

You cited OT passage and brought that forward to a present day support- yet they could not see anything but that OT period...

Christ came and brought truth into the confusion of sin in this place Jn 18:37... that truth is seen here in this age

John 18:36

36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight,

so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

NKJV

Love, Steven

Let me try to get this straight. You introduced the notion of the whole council of God into the discussion by citing 2 Cor. I then respond by citing Ecclesiastes which the last time I checked - is still part of the whole council of God. We can plainly see that we live in a fallen world and it's obvious that there are times of war and peace. You counter by making a point of dispensational difference to which I responded that the age of grace is the fulfillment of OT law - not the abolishment of it. Do you agree or disagree as you have not stated your position? I am not sure if you are attempting to use Jn 18:36 scripture as your basis for "not fighting." Nevertheless, that verse cannot be used to support a universal position of not resorting to violence under any and all circumstances because in its proper context Jesus is specifically referring to his soon crucifixion which must be fulfilled according to the Father's plan. Therefore any "fighting" action taken by Jesus' followers would be directly contrary to the Father's will being done.

[BlessedByTheBest]

Thank you for your gracious response to my comment. I think Scripture can have at times a dual meaning - both figurative and literal - depending on its specific context as well as harmony with the rest of Scripture. At other times it is one or the other. Your question is how should we properly address this Lukan passage? I don't know if all the disciples had time to sell their cloaks and buy swords - better not to speculate because the scriptures are silent on this question and it is preferable not to argue from silence. However, the text does state that the disciples responded to Jesus that they had two swords when Jesus issued these instructions to which Jesus replied "it is enough." If Jesus' intent was figurative in nature, then I would think that he would have take the opportunity to clarify to them that he wasn't talking about literal swords but he didn't do that. Instead he allows Peter to carry a sword which he eventually uses to lop off an ear. I would think that if Jesus didn't mean literal swords, he would have certainly explained it to Peter at that pivotal moment when someone's blood was shed. Lastly if one thinks that the sword is figurative, one would also have to ask what does a figurative purse and a figurative bag mean as Jesus also instructed them to take those items with them as well. Just from a practical standpoint, the figurative view means that his disciples would just be wearing the clothes on their back.

my pleasure, thank you for the opportunity to further reflect on this with you.

we are in agreement concerning Scripture's dual meanings, and is why we are addressing the context in this episode of Christ's life.

i don't believe it is speculation to question whether they had enough time, considering you yourself made the distinction that Jesus commanded them to go prepare. i believe the question is valid pertaining to the context.

i am on the other end of your proposition. if we are to examine His commands here as strictly literal, then it begs the question of why He did not insist on them doing exactly that, instead of settling for..."we have 2 swords here, Lord."

in light of this, i believe His response to this is very significant indeed.

"It is enough."

surely, stating you do not know is an answer. but i would say of course they didn't have enough time to 'prepare' before His capture, and would venture to 'speculate' that Christ knew this.

i'll mention again, i believe the hasty use of the weapon was allowed, just as all things are allowed that may lead to our or another's benefit, for reasons we cannot know of in advance.

the Lord is all-knowing, and by His omniscience and providence, all our decisions are put to good use in order that His glory may be made known.

by all means, we can liken the purses and bags to figurative notions of preparation as well and it would even further support my view.. but i make the distinction of the weapons because of the fact one was used during His apprehension, and the others were not.

love to you.