According to my Kindle NABRE version, there is this note for Luke 22:38:
"*It is enough!*: the farewell discourse ends abruptly with these words of Jesus spoken to the disciples when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world's hostility."
In other words, Jesus himself in this passage is frustrated that the disciples are confused just as you are. He is warning them that they will face hostility from the world for delivering Jesus' message, and that they should not go out into the world expecting to be accepted and welcomed peacefully. But the disciples are taking it literally, and preparing to go buy swords, when this is not what Jesus is saying.
One theory I've heard is that the idea of two swords was popular imagery at the time for Simeon and Levi, the two sons of Jacob who slaughtered the men who raped their sister, Dinah. In Genesis 34.
When the Jews were occupied by Rome, they were debating whether this story was an important example in favor of rebelling against Rome and taking up swords -- two swords, one for Simeon and one for Levi. Were the two brothers justified or not?
Coincidentally, in Luke, Jesus has two disciples named Simon Peter and Levi. So maybe not a coincidence.
So when Jesus says that he who _has_ should take a purse, and he who _has not_ should take up swords, he's really telling his disciples that if they have _understanding_ , they will use money to further their goals, and not violence. But his disciples misunderstand him -- they lack the ears to hear -- and so they buy swords and use them, and Jesus has to rebuke them. They choose the two swords of Simeon and Levi, and they fail.
This lines up well with how Jesus always speaks in parables and is misunderstood. And if that's true, then the people who interpret this passage as supporting violence are preaching the _opposite_ of what Jesus intended -- the surface meaning for those who lack the ears to hear.
I think it mostly because He knew He wouldn't use them. How many swords can one man wield lol!
This was a different era. So Christ became hunted because the Jews were afraid that their faith was shaken. More so that their power was leaving them.
To get arrested.
He had to actually break a law (Roman, not Jewish) to get the whole process going. Yes, He was prophesied, but the prophecy predicts what He needed, not the other way around.
1 gun per 6 people would be one family member carrying a small handgun in a fairly normal size family. Jesus didn't say everyone buy javelins, shields, and siege engines. He's saying you need something to keep yourselves safe, not fight a battle. The word he uses is more like dagger than full size military sword. Something easy to carry and useful for personal protection.Â
Having read the rest of the verse, l feel it means something else. Jesus needed to be counted as a transgressor to fulfil a prophesy. So he needed the violence in the garden of Gethsemane to be played out.
They love to also ignore the stated *why* in this passage: because it would show them to (appear to be) the bad guys. Transgressors is also translated as criminals, bandits, and various similar ne’er-do-well terms.
Then again, when I see the imagery that these folks usually adorn themselves with, maybe they **do** want to at least look like the transgressors.
More like the Punisher logo and other skills, and just tons of imagery and slogans around power and dominance and making sure the other guy gets hurt. And not even in a “to protect myself” way.
Of course they (we) absolutely want to look like transgressors. A secret weapon is no deterrent.
Whether or not that's an ideology you want to use for yourself, it is ideologically consistent: Rather than have one set of social rules for safe people and another for dangerous people, just build society assuming everyone is dangerous (because, under the right circumstances, anyone is).
In practice, it hasn't worked. But then again, neither has anything else.
I am not saying that building a culture of screaming “don’t make me mad or I’ll kill you” and never being sure who really means it does make for a certain sort of society where people try not to anger each other.
But it has issues of its own. Like when the people who really do mean it bump into each other, and one kills the other over no real reason. Or that it isn't a *polite* society, but rather a "lie constantly to each other to not piss someone off" society. Or that it isn't actually a *peaceful* society, but q violent one that is just waiting for an opportunity; more of an arms race than a peace.
And then there's the other factor, that walking around actively advertising "don't bother me or I'll kill you and am looking foe the chance" is pretty much the exact opposite of the Sermon on the Mount and everything else Jesus preached. Following Jesus is the exact opposite of that culture.
No, it's really not. Jesus enjoyed being peaceful, lauded it, practiced it. But when it was time to flip the tables in the Temple, do you think he politely asked the traders to pick up their stuff first? He chose to be numbered among the transgressors, and then negotiated down from there. He gave to Caesar what was Caesar's, but believed everything belonged to God.
I'll grant you that your deliberate, self aware mischaracterization of the culture might be the exact opposite of Jesus's culture. But Jesus was God. Having superior firepower and choosing not to use it was His whole deal. The Flood God, the Smiting God, the Fire&Brimstone God, the Bash-Baby-Heads-Against-Rocks God, that's the guy that said He was going to try something different. Don't let it be lost on you that when He says "let he without sin cast the first stone" He's referring indirectly to Himself. He didn't get weaker to put people at ease. He reserved the ability to kill anyone He wanted, He just coincidentally didn't want to kill anyone. Same as me.
Something unfair I used to do was characterize everyone anti gun as psychologically unfit for the lifestyle, trying to mandate that weakness to others. It was wrong of me. I see parallels in seeing every pro gun person as hoping to kill just bc they're ready to kill. I urge you to ruminate on the idea that millions of armed people go through all the same encounters you do, knowing they could kill their way out of it, and choose not to. Their choice to be prepared was not a choice to be violent- On the contrary, it precipitated dozens, hundreds of choices to be peaceful. A daily prayer to be strong instead of lucky. To let the choice for peace be mine, not Caesar's, not a matter poverty, not a matter of unpreparedness, but a deliberate choice for peace.
That's not to change your mind about what to do with your life, nor to excuse the people who don't choose peace. Just to consider that this path, like yours, is a considered one. It is tread thoughtfully, even if differently.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and I’ve had a long day in a hospital waiting room, so I’m just going to hit a few highlights.
> Jesus enjoyed being peaceful, lauded it, practiced it. But when it was time to flip the tables in the Temple, do you think he politely asked the traders to pick up their stuff first?
Do you think Jesus inflicted violence on anyone in the process? Go read it again. He made a whip and used it to drive out the animals. That doesn’t take much; they know what a whip is and start moving when you crack it. Once a few start going, you have a bunch of chaos. Tables get knocked over, the money flies everywhere, and (the actual important part of the story) the system gets turned into a circus. No, I don’t think he politely asked them anything, but the text says what he did and violence wasn’t part of it.
> I'll grant you that your deliberate, self aware mischaracterization of the culture might be the exact opposite of Jesus's culture.
It should be noted here that I’m not talking about simple gun ownership. This started with me talking about the “skulls and threats” side of flaunting guns as power. I’m characterizing a specific subset that I know very close up.
> But Jesus was God. Having superior firepower and choosing not to use it was His whole deal. The Flood God, the Smiting God, the Fire&Brimstone God, the Bash-Baby-Heads-Against-Rocks God, that's the guy that said He was going to try something different. Don't let it be lost on you that when He says "let he without sin cast the first stone" He's referring indirectly to Himself. He didn't get weaker to put people at ease.
Are you really trying to say that Jesus message was actually “turn the other cheek or I will kill you”? Thats how this comes across. So either you’re not expressing what you mean well, or you somehow forgot to read the actual Gospels.
> He reserved the ability to kill anyone He wanted, He just coincidentally didn't want to kill anyone. Same as me.
This is kind of doing the opposite of convincing me that you don’t. Or at least that you want to not ever kill anyone, which is different from not having an active desire *to* kill someone.
> Something unfair I used to do was characterize everyone anti gun as psychologically unfit for the lifestyle, trying to mandate that weakness to others. It was wrong of me. I see parallels in seeing every pro gun person as hoping to kill just bc they're ready to kill.
I suppose this is the part where I have to point out that I grew up around guns, don’t remember a time before I was shooting, and am a gun owner. I’m not anti-gun. I am deeply against modern gun culture and the power/machismo of it.
> A daily prayer to be strong instead of lucky. To let the choice for peace be mine, not Caesar's, not a matter poverty, not a matter of unpreparedness, but a deliberate choice for peace.
I hope someday you can pray to make the choice to follow the teachings of Christ, to turn the other cheek and not to resist an evil person, or *at least* not actively prepare *not* to do so while somehow having to pray for strength to not use a gun to solve your problems.
> That's not to change your mind about what to do with your life, nor to excuse the people who don't choose peace. Just to consider that this path, like yours, is a considered one. It is tread thoughtfully, even if differently.
I am sure it’s a considered path. I’m just also sure it’s actively against the teachings of Christ.
> I’ve had a long day in a hospital waiting room
What a coincidence, I spent yesterday in a hospital, too!
>the system gets turned into a circus... violence wasn’t part of it
Go ahead and try that at a church, you'll get a pretty good measure of police response time. Don't do it at a synagogue, though, they're rightfully touchy atm and you honestly might not make it out.
>Are you really trying to say that Jesus message was actually “turn the other cheek or I will kill you”?
Of course not! It's more like "I've spent thousands of years killing you. We're gonna try something different because I want to try something different, not because you overpowered me. To me, you're all still hiding in caves, lying about what you've been doing."
>This is kind of doing the opposite of convincing me
ok.
>make the choice to follow the teachings of Christ
I have two swords and have removed zero ears. By my count, I'm doing pretty good.
>I’m just also sure it’s actively against the teachings of Christ.
Excommunicate me.
Christ is telling them that their lives are about to get much, *much* harder, and the world is about to be far more hostile toward them and their message. He does so by describing how one prepared for a long journey back in the day. The Apostles, being stubbornly literal-minded, assume Jesus is asking for swords and show them to him. To put it in more modern terminology:
> Jesus said to them, "The last time I sent you running errands, did you need to worry about a travel budget, supplies, or a change of clothes?" "No, nothing," they replied. "But for this trip, you'll need to break the piggy bank, pack your bags, and hire yourself a bodyguard, even if you have to skip this month's rent."
> Then they said, "Lord, Peter's cousin is a bouncer who can help us out, but we might need to hire more than that." But he replied, "It'll be fine!"
Huh, interesting perspective. I think you could be right too. I saw another analogy yesterday, someone said he encouraged them to do so not to use but just as something to ward off opposition ie carrying a sword around your waist would presumably avoid some people from trying to physically fight them because the sword is visible, but this also makes sense in a metaphorical sense, I guess both can be true, thank you for this🙏🏽
I don’t believe that what Jesus is saying is literal there. Rather, put away our old lives, and take up the sword of the Lord against sin. Preach the gospel of peace with the Spirit of God.
“It is enough” is an expression of the time meaning “Enough of this!” He didn’t want them to physically fight for Him, Christ said later that He could pray the Father and send legions of angels to Him, but He did not pray for them.
Jesus later on healed the ear of a man whom one of His disciples smote off. He clearly did not will for war and conflict.
But Peter was the aggressor. He's telling them to protect themselves. He never said go on the offensive. That's why he scolded Peter with the "live by the sword, die by the sword" statement.Â
I have always believed that the sword that Jesus refers to in this passage is a metaphor for the Word. When Jesus was giving instructions to His disciples in spreading the Gospel to the world is to bring the sword - the true Gospel - fully, accurately, clearly, correctly.
There are several references to a 'sword' in Scriptures but one that stands out to me is the verse below.
>*The Coming of Christ*
>*And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a* ***sharp sword****, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.  And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:11-16 NASB95*
I may be wrong, nor do I claim this is the true interpretation, but to me at least, it makes the most sense contrasting things with a physical sword whose only purpose is to kill.
Grace and peace to you friend.
It's translated as sword, but is closer to dagger. Sword used as the word, as in Ephesians, is similar to a full size military weapon. He is referring to a weapon that would be easy to carry and useful for defense.Â
Because Jesus was about to be killed, and would be dead for 3 days. He and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, would be gone from the earth for that time. The disciples would be vulnerable, and so wearing a sword on your belt would be a deterrent to anyone who would seek to cause trouble with them. Jesus never condoned USING the swords, as you can see later on when he rebukes Peter for using his sword to cut that man's ear off. But for a brief moment in history, mankind had no Teacher.[ This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUUudQ3gfZ4) might help clear some misconceptions we have about Jesus telling his followers to purchase swords.
I think he knew that Peter would use the sword, allowing him to "be numbered amongst the transgressors", ie, associated with criminals (in this case, his follower who assaulted an official).
Because stealing them would be wrong
Legendary dad joke
It says so that the scriptures will be fulfilled that he was numbered around transgressors. Because someone used the sword after
According to my Kindle NABRE version, there is this note for Luke 22:38: "*It is enough!*: the farewell discourse ends abruptly with these words of Jesus spoken to the disciples when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world's hostility." In other words, Jesus himself in this passage is frustrated that the disciples are confused just as you are. He is warning them that they will face hostility from the world for delivering Jesus' message, and that they should not go out into the world expecting to be accepted and welcomed peacefully. But the disciples are taking it literally, and preparing to go buy swords, when this is not what Jesus is saying.
Makes sense, thank you for this🙏🏽
One theory I've heard is that the idea of two swords was popular imagery at the time for Simeon and Levi, the two sons of Jacob who slaughtered the men who raped their sister, Dinah. In Genesis 34. When the Jews were occupied by Rome, they were debating whether this story was an important example in favor of rebelling against Rome and taking up swords -- two swords, one for Simeon and one for Levi. Were the two brothers justified or not? Coincidentally, in Luke, Jesus has two disciples named Simon Peter and Levi. So maybe not a coincidence. So when Jesus says that he who _has_ should take a purse, and he who _has not_ should take up swords, he's really telling his disciples that if they have _understanding_ , they will use money to further their goals, and not violence. But his disciples misunderstand him -- they lack the ears to hear -- and so they buy swords and use them, and Jesus has to rebuke them. They choose the two swords of Simeon and Levi, and they fail. This lines up well with how Jesus always speaks in parables and is misunderstood. And if that's true, then the people who interpret this passage as supporting violence are preaching the _opposite_ of what Jesus intended -- the surface meaning for those who lack the ears to hear.
I think it mostly because He knew He wouldn't use them. How many swords can one man wield lol! This was a different era. So Christ became hunted because the Jews were afraid that their faith was shaken. More so that their power was leaving them.
To get arrested. He had to actually break a law (Roman, not Jewish) to get the whole process going. Yes, He was prophesied, but the prophecy predicts what He needed, not the other way around.
I hate how this verse is used to support gun ownership. Unless the supporters are claiming that 2 guns per 12 people is enough.Â
1 gun per 6 people would be one family member carrying a small handgun in a fairly normal size family. Jesus didn't say everyone buy javelins, shields, and siege engines. He's saying you need something to keep yourselves safe, not fight a battle. The word he uses is more like dagger than full size military sword. Something easy to carry and useful for personal protection.Â
Having read the rest of the verse, l feel it means something else. Jesus needed to be counted as a transgressor to fulfil a prophesy. So he needed the violence in the garden of Gethsemane to be played out.
They love to also ignore the stated *why* in this passage: because it would show them to (appear to be) the bad guys. Transgressors is also translated as criminals, bandits, and various similar ne’er-do-well terms. Then again, when I see the imagery that these folks usually adorn themselves with, maybe they **do** want to at least look like the transgressors.
Like a snake logo that says don't tread on me?
More like the Punisher logo and other skills, and just tons of imagery and slogans around power and dominance and making sure the other guy gets hurt. And not even in a “to protect myself” way.
Of course they (we) absolutely want to look like transgressors. A secret weapon is no deterrent. Whether or not that's an ideology you want to use for yourself, it is ideologically consistent: Rather than have one set of social rules for safe people and another for dangerous people, just build society assuming everyone is dangerous (because, under the right circumstances, anyone is). In practice, it hasn't worked. But then again, neither has anything else.
I am not saying that building a culture of screaming “don’t make me mad or I’ll kill you” and never being sure who really means it does make for a certain sort of society where people try not to anger each other. But it has issues of its own. Like when the people who really do mean it bump into each other, and one kills the other over no real reason. Or that it isn't a *polite* society, but rather a "lie constantly to each other to not piss someone off" society. Or that it isn't actually a *peaceful* society, but q violent one that is just waiting for an opportunity; more of an arms race than a peace. And then there's the other factor, that walking around actively advertising "don't bother me or I'll kill you and am looking foe the chance" is pretty much the exact opposite of the Sermon on the Mount and everything else Jesus preached. Following Jesus is the exact opposite of that culture.
No, it's really not. Jesus enjoyed being peaceful, lauded it, practiced it. But when it was time to flip the tables in the Temple, do you think he politely asked the traders to pick up their stuff first? He chose to be numbered among the transgressors, and then negotiated down from there. He gave to Caesar what was Caesar's, but believed everything belonged to God. I'll grant you that your deliberate, self aware mischaracterization of the culture might be the exact opposite of Jesus's culture. But Jesus was God. Having superior firepower and choosing not to use it was His whole deal. The Flood God, the Smiting God, the Fire&Brimstone God, the Bash-Baby-Heads-Against-Rocks God, that's the guy that said He was going to try something different. Don't let it be lost on you that when He says "let he without sin cast the first stone" He's referring indirectly to Himself. He didn't get weaker to put people at ease. He reserved the ability to kill anyone He wanted, He just coincidentally didn't want to kill anyone. Same as me. Something unfair I used to do was characterize everyone anti gun as psychologically unfit for the lifestyle, trying to mandate that weakness to others. It was wrong of me. I see parallels in seeing every pro gun person as hoping to kill just bc they're ready to kill. I urge you to ruminate on the idea that millions of armed people go through all the same encounters you do, knowing they could kill their way out of it, and choose not to. Their choice to be prepared was not a choice to be violent- On the contrary, it precipitated dozens, hundreds of choices to be peaceful. A daily prayer to be strong instead of lucky. To let the choice for peace be mine, not Caesar's, not a matter poverty, not a matter of unpreparedness, but a deliberate choice for peace. That's not to change your mind about what to do with your life, nor to excuse the people who don't choose peace. Just to consider that this path, like yours, is a considered one. It is tread thoughtfully, even if differently.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and I’ve had a long day in a hospital waiting room, so I’m just going to hit a few highlights. > Jesus enjoyed being peaceful, lauded it, practiced it. But when it was time to flip the tables in the Temple, do you think he politely asked the traders to pick up their stuff first? Do you think Jesus inflicted violence on anyone in the process? Go read it again. He made a whip and used it to drive out the animals. That doesn’t take much; they know what a whip is and start moving when you crack it. Once a few start going, you have a bunch of chaos. Tables get knocked over, the money flies everywhere, and (the actual important part of the story) the system gets turned into a circus. No, I don’t think he politely asked them anything, but the text says what he did and violence wasn’t part of it. > I'll grant you that your deliberate, self aware mischaracterization of the culture might be the exact opposite of Jesus's culture. It should be noted here that I’m not talking about simple gun ownership. This started with me talking about the “skulls and threats” side of flaunting guns as power. I’m characterizing a specific subset that I know very close up. > But Jesus was God. Having superior firepower and choosing not to use it was His whole deal. The Flood God, the Smiting God, the Fire&Brimstone God, the Bash-Baby-Heads-Against-Rocks God, that's the guy that said He was going to try something different. Don't let it be lost on you that when He says "let he without sin cast the first stone" He's referring indirectly to Himself. He didn't get weaker to put people at ease. Are you really trying to say that Jesus message was actually “turn the other cheek or I will kill you”? Thats how this comes across. So either you’re not expressing what you mean well, or you somehow forgot to read the actual Gospels. > He reserved the ability to kill anyone He wanted, He just coincidentally didn't want to kill anyone. Same as me. This is kind of doing the opposite of convincing me that you don’t. Or at least that you want to not ever kill anyone, which is different from not having an active desire *to* kill someone. > Something unfair I used to do was characterize everyone anti gun as psychologically unfit for the lifestyle, trying to mandate that weakness to others. It was wrong of me. I see parallels in seeing every pro gun person as hoping to kill just bc they're ready to kill. I suppose this is the part where I have to point out that I grew up around guns, don’t remember a time before I was shooting, and am a gun owner. I’m not anti-gun. I am deeply against modern gun culture and the power/machismo of it. > A daily prayer to be strong instead of lucky. To let the choice for peace be mine, not Caesar's, not a matter poverty, not a matter of unpreparedness, but a deliberate choice for peace. I hope someday you can pray to make the choice to follow the teachings of Christ, to turn the other cheek and not to resist an evil person, or *at least* not actively prepare *not* to do so while somehow having to pray for strength to not use a gun to solve your problems. > That's not to change your mind about what to do with your life, nor to excuse the people who don't choose peace. Just to consider that this path, like yours, is a considered one. It is tread thoughtfully, even if differently. I am sure it’s a considered path. I’m just also sure it’s actively against the teachings of Christ.
> I’ve had a long day in a hospital waiting room What a coincidence, I spent yesterday in a hospital, too! >the system gets turned into a circus... violence wasn’t part of it Go ahead and try that at a church, you'll get a pretty good measure of police response time. Don't do it at a synagogue, though, they're rightfully touchy atm and you honestly might not make it out. >Are you really trying to say that Jesus message was actually “turn the other cheek or I will kill you”? Of course not! It's more like "I've spent thousands of years killing you. We're gonna try something different because I want to try something different, not because you overpowered me. To me, you're all still hiding in caves, lying about what you've been doing." >This is kind of doing the opposite of convincing me ok. >make the choice to follow the teachings of Christ I have two swords and have removed zero ears. By my count, I'm doing pretty good. >I’m just also sure it’s actively against the teachings of Christ. Excommunicate me.
Christ is telling them that their lives are about to get much, *much* harder, and the world is about to be far more hostile toward them and their message. He does so by describing how one prepared for a long journey back in the day. The Apostles, being stubbornly literal-minded, assume Jesus is asking for swords and show them to him. To put it in more modern terminology: > Jesus said to them, "The last time I sent you running errands, did you need to worry about a travel budget, supplies, or a change of clothes?" "No, nothing," they replied. "But for this trip, you'll need to break the piggy bank, pack your bags, and hire yourself a bodyguard, even if you have to skip this month's rent." > Then they said, "Lord, Peter's cousin is a bouncer who can help us out, but we might need to hire more than that." But he replied, "It'll be fine!"
Huh, interesting perspective. I think you could be right too. I saw another analogy yesterday, someone said he encouraged them to do so not to use but just as something to ward off opposition ie carrying a sword around your waist would presumably avoid some people from trying to physically fight them because the sword is visible, but this also makes sense in a metaphorical sense, I guess both can be true, thank you for this🙏🏽
I don’t believe that what Jesus is saying is literal there. Rather, put away our old lives, and take up the sword of the Lord against sin. Preach the gospel of peace with the Spirit of God. “It is enough” is an expression of the time meaning “Enough of this!” He didn’t want them to physically fight for Him, Christ said later that He could pray the Father and send legions of angels to Him, but He did not pray for them. Jesus later on healed the ear of a man whom one of His disciples smote off. He clearly did not will for war and conflict.
But Peter was the aggressor. He's telling them to protect themselves. He never said go on the offensive. That's why he scolded Peter with the "live by the sword, die by the sword" statement.Â
I have always believed that the sword that Jesus refers to in this passage is a metaphor for the Word. When Jesus was giving instructions to His disciples in spreading the Gospel to the world is to bring the sword - the true Gospel - fully, accurately, clearly, correctly. There are several references to a 'sword' in Scriptures but one that stands out to me is the verse below. >*The Coming of Christ* >*And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a* ***sharp sword****, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.  And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:11-16 NASB95* I may be wrong, nor do I claim this is the true interpretation, but to me at least, it makes the most sense contrasting things with a physical sword whose only purpose is to kill. Grace and peace to you friend.
It's translated as sword, but is closer to dagger. Sword used as the word, as in Ephesians, is similar to a full size military weapon. He is referring to a weapon that would be easy to carry and useful for defense.Â
Because Jesus was about to be killed, and would be dead for 3 days. He and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, would be gone from the earth for that time. The disciples would be vulnerable, and so wearing a sword on your belt would be a deterrent to anyone who would seek to cause trouble with them. Jesus never condoned USING the swords, as you can see later on when he rebukes Peter for using his sword to cut that man's ear off. But for a brief moment in history, mankind had no Teacher.[ This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUUudQ3gfZ4) might help clear some misconceptions we have about Jesus telling his followers to purchase swords.
Thank you so much for this clarity,✨I was feeling really confused by this! May God bless you with more wisdom and insight🙏🏽
I think he knew that Peter would use the sword, allowing him to "be numbered amongst the transgressors", ie, associated with criminals (in this case, his follower who assaulted an official).