Peter & Sword play


#1

In respect of Jn 18:10, I wonder why a Disciple of Jesus was carrying a sword? Does the Greek translate as ‘sword’ or was it a long knife, or other type of weapon that could have been used as a tool? If it was a sword, surely then it would have only been concievably used as a weapon. Why would Peter have carried a sword? Is there any historical prescedent?


#2

[quote=FightingFat]In respect of Jn 18:10, I wonder why a Disciple of Jesus was carrying a sword? Does the Greek translate as ‘sword’ or was it a long knife, or other type of weapon that could have been used as a tool? If it was a sword, surely then it would have only been concievably used as a weapon. Why would Peter have carried a sword? Is there any historical prescedent?
[/quote]

Remember when Peter cut off the guys ear?


#3

[quote=Andrew_11]Remember when Peter cut off the guys ear?
[/quote]

Yeahhhhh…That’s what I’m posting about Andrew. :wink:


#4

Real simple. Peter was human, and as scripture shows, a bit impetuous at times. He probably brought along a sword to protect himself and others in his group. While he was a believer, his faith wasn’t perfect as he demonstrates by denying Christ three times when the going got tough.


#5

[quote=FightingFat]I wonder why a Disciple of Jesus was carrying a sword?
[/quote]

Because Jesus told him to: Luke 22:36-38


#6

[quote=Genesis315]Because Jesus told him to: Luke 22:36-38
[/quote]

Most excellent…I forgot about that passage!


#7

[quote=FightingFat]In respect of Jn 18:10, I wonder why a Disciple of Jesus was carrying a sword? Does the Greek translate as ‘sword’ or was it a long knife, or other type of weapon that could have been used as a tool? If it was a sword, surely then it would have only been concievably used as a weapon. Why would Peter have carried a sword? Is there any historical prescedent?
[/quote]

Is carrying around a sword a sin? No! Is it illegal today? Yes, lol. So, today it would be considered a sin since it is disobeying authority. But, in those days times were ruff. Violence is justifiable in some cases. What if someone wanted to murder peter before he even got a chance to spread the word and be martyred in Rome? The Church wouldn’t be as it is today. However, I don’t think he needed it, I’m sure God wouldn’t have let anyone touch him until the right time. If you live by the sword, you die by it. Peter was human and I’m sure he was afraid. I guess it has to do with Jesus’ prophesy saying that he will go where he didn’t want to go. It also helps to show the reader how dangerous it was to be an apostle.


#8

[quote=Genesis315]Because Jesus told him to: Luke 22:36-38
[/quote]

:mad:

So many misenterpret that passage.

:tsktsk:

The disciples take Jesus’ remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it. As the arrest shows, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle. They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18).

Do you know so little of your faith?

The use of the sword in the defence of Jesus at his arrest and the occasion of a saying only recorded in Matthew 26:52; they who take the sword shall perish by the sword. Jesus said that He came to bring not peace but a sword (Mt 10:34), where the context clearly indicates that the sword means hostility arroused by faith in him. Mt 26:52 makes explicit whar is implicit in the other Gospels concerning His attitude to the use of violence in His defense. He sharply rejects it. But the generalization goes beyond a particular occasion and can be interpreted as nothing but a total repudiation of the use of arms and violence. This is altogether in haromony with other sayings of the Gospel (Mt 5:38-48; Lk 6:27-30, 32-36); an apeal to violence ultimately produces nothing but except the destruction of him who appeals to it. This need not be understood as a moral repudiation but simply as a declaration of the futility of violence; and Christians who believe that there is legitamate violence must consider how they suit their belief with the judgement of Jesus on violence. It seems the minimum of respect for the words of the Gospel would prevent anyone from advocating the use of violence to advance the work of Jesus Christ.


#9

Do you know so little of your faith?

Was this comment really necessary? Your answer would have been much better and, I’m sure, better recieved without it. :slight_smile:


#10

I had the same kinds of questions a few months back here.


#11

[quote=Fidelis]Was this comment really necessary? Your answer would have been much better and, I’m sure, better recieved without it. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Fidelis I appreciate your candor, having been here for some time I often find myself frustrated by glib answers to complex questions.

Was this comment necessary? In context I would say yes, because the post is patronising and demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the relevant passage of scripture from a Catholic perspective at least, as well as deviation from Catholic teaching of the passage quoted. To be honest, when admonished in such a way that lacks scholarly undertsanding I find myself offended.


#12

Please keep it charitable.


#13

[quote=FightingFat]In respect of Jn 18:10, I wonder why a Disciple of Jesus was carrying a sword? Does the Greek translate as ‘sword’ or was it a long knife, or other type of weapon that could have been used as a tool? If it was a sword, surely then it would have only been concievably used as a weapon. Why would Peter have carried a sword? Is there any historical prescedent?
[/quote]

If I have offended you, my sincere apologies. I misinterpreted the question you asked as needing an on the surface response rather than a deeper disection of the matter. As I am rather new to this area I’ll be more watchful for your posts and strive for a more disciplined, less glib response.


#14

Remember the passage where Jesus tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword. they say “Look Lord, here are two swords” and He says it is enough?

One thing that I would point out is that it was most likely the standard weapon of the day…a Roman style sword which wasn’t very long…probably the length of the Japanese wakizashi or so.

Why was he armed? Remember that for some time Jesus had been telling them plainly that he was going to Jerusalem and all that was going to happen to him, but they were sort of in denial.

I guess Peter took it all a bit more seriously, which might to some degree explain why he was so fierce in his denial of Jesus, and then in his remorse.

Interesting that only one account of the arrest tells of Jesus healing the servant Malchus’s ear (Read it here) And All 4 accounts
Pax tecum FF!


#15

[quote=StCsDavid]If I have offended you, my sincere apologies. I misinterpreted the question you asked as needing an on the surface response rather than a deeper disection of the matter. As I am rather new to this area I’ll be more watchful for your posts and strive for a more disciplined, less glib response.
[/quote]

It’s cool, no sweat, sorry if I over-reacted, I’ve had that particular passage thrown at me a couple of times to demonstrate that Jesus preached violence was ok and it kind of winds me up.

[quote=BlackKnight]Remember the passage where Jesus tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword. they say “Look Lord, here are two swords” and He says it is enough?

[/quote]

This is the passage. In what context are you quoting it here BK? If you read my earlier post on the subject I wrote :-

The disciples take Jesus’ remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it. As the arrest shows, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle. They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18).


#16

[quote=FightingFat]Fidelis I appreciate your candor, having been here for some time I often find myself frustrated by glib answers to complex questions.

Was this comment necessary? In context I would say yes, because the post is patronising and demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the relevant passage of scripture from a Catholic perspective at least, as well as deviation from Catholic teaching of the passage quoted. To be honest, when admonished in such a way that lacks scholarly undertsanding I find myself offended.
[/quote]

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be patronizing. Sheesh. Anyway, then, the better response would be Peter thought Jesus told him to. How’s that?


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.