Talk:Sell your cloak and buy a sword

Figurative Interpretation

Since this analysis contradicts other accounts where the disciples were carrying swords, such as the arrest of Jesus, that fact should be noted. Gill's account would appear to be in error. I have no objection to stating Gill's analysis, but it shouldn't be misleading. I have no objection to deleting that section, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.161.87 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting the note in this section, presumably to promote a misleading reading of John Gill. I also note that there is discussion in the preceding section that brings context and color to the article. They seem to have no interest in discussion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.161.87 (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A Literal Interpretation

In reading and re-reading the context surrounding this passage, it seems rather clear that Jesus was saying, "Hey, when I sent you out before you didn't have anything yet you were OK, right? But now, we're in Jerusalem and I've got to fulfill my prophecy and be crucified. So you're going to be on your own, and the world will be a much more hostile place to you all because of me and what I've done. So take your purse, your bags, and sell your cloaks and buy a sword -- because you'll need it. Not only for self-defense, but also to chop wood, kill wild animals, etc." Jesus was all about peace, yes, but he also wasn't about letting his people be slaughtered without any defense either. How else would would his message get out and spread if his followers were killed off? And when his disciples finally do come back and say "We've got two swords!" He says that enough. It's enough because two swords are plenty for legitimate self defense, chopping wood, hunting, and otherwise being a deterrent to potential violence. Too many swords and Jesus' followers might have been viewed as a threat, which he didn't want. He also didn't want his followers going out and starting a revolution or killing the Romans and trying to free him, and two swords wouldn't have allowed them to do this, but two swords WOULD allow them to take care of themselves after he was dead, defend themselves if need be and otherwise look out for themselves and one another after they were in this new hostile world without him. 98.164.239.112 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"use your sword to chop wood" lmfao 2603:3018:CD9:100:D55B:CD99:CF10:8D0C (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

One sword was enough

"it" could refer to the armaments they have. There is an instruction to buy a sword, apparently to all. The disciples respond they have two already. So, there were two swords, and Jesus sent for more than one sword, otherwise the disciples would respond with "here is a sword", not "we have two.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.161.87 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with the page as I found it. The head(intro) only mentions one argument, which is addressed with a single sentence in the body. The very lengthy remainder of the body was not summarized in the head - contrary to wiki guidance. The article is lop-sided, giving undue weight to the pacifist anarchist POV. The William Most reference links to a text only page that does not identify the author, and does not seem to support the claim made. The Brandon reference does not include enough information to verify anything - a quote with sufficient context is needed. The statement that "They claim that two swords could not possibly have been 'enough' to defend Jesus" is ambiguous. "They" meaning Ellul and Yoder, or "they" meaning the disciples? The claim that "Peter draws one of the swords" (plural) is contrary to the evidence. Likewise Gill's claim that "two were sufficient" is not what Jesus said.

Jesus plainly said, "It is enough." - which is from the greek "εστιν" (es-tin) a verb - present indicative - third person singular - "it is" - which plainly indicates that one sword was enough. And there is only one sword evident in Gethsemane later. (The posse brought swords and staves, but no mention of their use.) None of the sources for the article are reliable in that respect. Obviously when they said here are two swords, Peter probably picked up one of them, and Jesus then said simply, It is enough - singular, present indicative, indicating one of the two swords. (And if he sold his cloak as instructed, or gave it as a pledge, to buy the sword from the owner of the "guest chamber", that would explain why he spent so much time later, warming himself at the fire! :)

Now, almost all versions of the Bible have the correct third person singular until about the latter part of the 20th century. The new "bibles" abandon the truth and fabricate various distortions and outright falsehoods. Looking now at Luke 22:38 --

"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough." (Authorized Version)
Other versions that say "It is enough" include: Douay, Webster, AKJV, Darby, ERV, ASV, NASB@1995.

Notice how "modern" versions progressively distort the meaning:

They said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords." He said to them, "That is enough." (World English Bible)
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (NIV1984)
"Look, Lord," they replied, "we have two swords among us." "That's enough," he said. (NLT2007)
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That’s enough!" he replied. (NIV2011)
So they said, "Lord, look! Here are two swords." He answered them, "Enough of that!" (ISV2008)

They said, "Look, Master, two swords!" But he said, "Enough of that; no more sword talk!" (The Message)

That last one is so totally wrong and an outright distortion. Jesus simply did not say that. He was not scolding them. One sword was enough to fulfill the prophecy. He needed Peter to bring the sword.

Looking now at the sword in Luke 22:49 in the garden:

"Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" (1611 Authorized Version)
Other versions with singular "sword" include Douay, Webster, Darby, ERV, NASB@1995, Weymouth, and World English versions, with some using the word "strike" instead of "smite".

Later versions falsely changed the singular greek word for "sword" to the plural:
"Shall we use our swords, Lord?" (GNT)
"Lord, should we strike with our swords?" (NIV1984, NIV2011)
"Lord, should we use our swords to fight?" (GOD'S WORD@1995)
"Lord, should we strike them with our swords?" (NCV)
"Lord, shall we fight with our swords?" (Worldwide English)
"Lord, should we fight with our swords?" (CEB)
"Lord, should we fight? We brought the swords!" (NLT)

Note that the servant of the high priest was the official representative leading the posse - Judas was only the guide. Some versions (NLT,GNT,HCSB,etc.) change the word "servant" to "slave", which is a gross distortion to hide his importance. He was not a slave, but the chief officer, the spokesman who told the strange looking man who it was they sought, which is why he was close enough to get his ear cut off. Yes, strange. Luke the physician observed that Jesus' sweat was as it were great drops of blood - a very rare condition when someone is under severe physical strain and the capillaries in the sweat glands burst, mingling blood with the sweat. (See hematidrosis) In the dim light, he didn't look like he did when they last saw him in the temple.

Remember that the scene in the garden was at night. The full moon is roughly at the time of the passover on a lunar calendar, with possibly alternating shafts of light through the trees. When the posse arrived, they had torches and lanterns, so there would have been a lot of interplay between lights and shadows to add to the confusion. Remember also that when Jesus and the disciples first arrived, he had the disciples sit and pray in one place, and took Peter, James and John to a second place for them to watch with him, and he went even further into the vale to pray. When he came back the third time and found the watch asleep, he at first told them to continue, but the posse was approaching, so he suddenly shocked them with a warning of what was coming. He then went first to meet the posse and asked who they sought. When the spokesman said "Jesus of Nazareth", he answered, I am he. (John 18:6) Note the honesty of the king James translators, putting the word "he" in italics to show that it is not in the original Greek. When the voice of the great "I am" of Exodus 3:14 spoke, the posse, including Judas, fell over backwards. Of course, Judas came forward to betray the Lord with a kiss. Jesus agreed to go peaceably with them if his disciples were granted immunity from prosecution. At this point, the three disciples on watch had come up behind Jesus, while the main body of disciples was approaching from the more distant place.

The deal Judas made was that after he I.D.'d Jesus, they should lead him away "safely". After the kiss, the officers stepped forward. The most probable scenario is that the servant of the high priest, with his left hand, took hold of Jesus' right arm, while another laid hold on him from the other side to escort him away. Meanwhile, impulsive Peter decided to come to Jesus' rescue, still half asleep, as he stretched forth his right hand to grasp the hard to see sword handle in the dim light, he didn't realize that the high priest's servant had turned his back toward him as they were about to lead Jesus away in protective custody. The servant suddenly heard a loud voice behind him say: "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" He partly turned and jerked his head to the right in fear, just as Peter was drawing the sword out of the sheath upward to the right, with the blade coming up parallel to the servant's back, missing the shoulder, and OOPS! He unwittingly amputated (cut off) the unobstructed right ear of his kinsman Malchus, who with shock and in pain, let go of Jesus, (so the Lord could catch the flying ear and heal him! :)

Well? He that hath an ear, let him hear! Remember that Jesus is the Lord and receive the love of the truth. Grace be with them that cherish our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Telpardec (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In so much as many would exchange religion for the Gospel, there are errors. Those wanting to recreate God in their image as opposed to listening to the God who created Man in His image. A Consciousness... Satan isn't as much a singular being as it is a state of being. Professional clergy are as those who pray before men, Matthew 6:5, why learn to them? have you no Gospel to learn from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinware2008 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article needs much work. As for the one or two swords, please feel free to add text and citations pointing to the one sword. Alexandre Christoyannopoulos read it as two swords were enough, as per reference. I have removed the dubious tag. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

THE sword; is a prophetic utterance. Nancy Emil, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.142.251 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you a "christian pacifist" to interpret this verse?

Christianity belongs to the political right, Christianity would never have been spread that much arround the globe without being able to defend itself physically, Jesus himself used violence against money changers in the temple and the first two world wars took place among christian nations.

Christian pacifist= oxymoron

80.131.52.239 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This not a forum for your opinions. If you have evidence to support your claim in order to improve this article, please provide it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Christianity belongs to the political right."

this is an assertion, and a very poorly thought out one at that. "My kingdom is not of this world" is a statement frequently expressed by christ himself all throughout the gospels. To speak of christianity as 'belonging' to any political side, particularly a modern one, is false in terms I can't condemn strongly enough on wikipedia. 2603:3018:CD9:100:D55B:CD99:CF10:8D0C (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)