score:6
I should preface my answer by saying this is entirely educated guesswork, as is any answer to this question. Don't take it as divine revelation, but as just one of many views on the events of the time.
Some have mentioned that maybe he was being metaphorical, and that the disciples were having one of their (quite frequent) blond moments in taking him literally. You think they would learn... anyway, this is very possible.
If you prefer to take it literally, my guess would be that Jesus wanted them to have swords for a short time. My reasoning is that Jesus has prefaced this with a comparison. Previously, they had gone out, preaching love, repentance and righteousness under the authority of their rabbi, their teacher / mentor / religious authority.
Having a rabbi was quite common. Many rabbis were radical, hard-hitting, slightly nutty and often very wrong (just read some of their recorded theories. One I read recently: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/index.htm). While Jesus was "just another rabbi", they had little to fear.
Yet for the next few weeks, "Jesus" was synonymous with "criminal". People who wanted to get in the good books with the religious leaders might want to present the head of one of his disciples, and people who might have once given them free stuff as a thank you for their wisdom and guidance would now be treating them as scum.
This crowd that came with the temple guards might consider it a good idea to take Jesus' collaborators as well - but when they arrive they are faced with a dillema. They could take an unarmed and willing Jesus without any fuss - which is all they really came for - or they could try and take an armed and unwilling 12 disciples. It's a no-brainer.
P.S: I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say "You shouldn't have done that", but instead says, "That's enough of that, you won't actually need to draw the sword unless you want to be killed by it" (paraphrased and liberties taken!). I imagine he was secretly glad they cut off the guard's ear, because it showed the crowd that the disciples meant business.
Also, to counter any potential arguments that God could have protected the disciples without resorting to swords, yes, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the disciples were not more confident knowing that they had swords with them, and it meant that the legacy of focus was solely on Jesus. Remember that "the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:5
Upvote:-1
A simple message for all Christians to abide by. The war of spirit cannot be won by force - you will surely be identified as an enemy. Patience understanding and teaching are our arsenal wielded with our love.
Upvote:0
The sword spoken of by Jesus is the sword of the Spirit. Jesus never contradicted Himself at any time. Though He was born of a woman he always pleased His Father. It is impossible to please God unless one is in the Spirit. (Heb 11:6) Why did Jesus rebuke Peter by saying "Get thee behind me Satan," (Mt 16:23) when Peter desired to spare Him from harm?
Peter was trying to protect Jesus from harm, by raising a literal sword and was stopped. (Mt 26; Jn 18) Why? Because Jesus was following His Father's direction, in the Spirit. We also must discern spirit by the Spirit, not by the flesh. (1 Cor 2) Ye must be born again. (Jn 3:7)
Upvote:1
This obviously, to me, is NOT the Sword of the Spirit.
A. Quote 'The sword is spiritual which he asks them to buy'! Jesus would not be mixing concrete terms like 'cloak' or 'bag' with 'Spirit' metaphors. That would be making Himself the god of confusion! That does not happen in the Bible. B. The Sword of the Spirit is another term for the Word, or Bible. The Bible was not complete at that time. Only scrolls from the Torah were owned by Scribes & temple scholars, usually. They were not freely bought like metal swords! C. the added verse, It is written: βAnd he was numbered with the transgressorsβ, would make more sense with transgression via the metal sword, not by Scripture/scrolls! Conclusion: if Jesus meant scripture texts/scrolls/ Mosaic or the prophets, as 'sword', He would have made it clear, and two would not be enough
Upvote:5
The sword is spiritual which he asks them to buy, such as the kind Paul refers to in his letter as 'the Sword of the Spirit', for example. Peter may have taken it literally (which mistake had been made several times in the past) and bought a sword with which he fought against the High Priest's servant.
In short, he is telling them to set aside worldly possessions (he who has a cloak) and arm themselves (let him buy a sword) for the war they are going to enter, which does not, indeed, end with his crucifixion, but continues until the end of time.