Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did the disciples use 'sidearms'? | John 18:10 | Makarios | 7748 | ||
Does the fact that Peter has a sword in John 18:10 show that the disciples used and advocated the use of a 'sidearm' weapon? Was the wearing or keeping of a sword used for self-defense? If so, would this advocate the use of a 'sidearm' for today? What does the Bible teach about the use of sidearms, and would this affect our views of gun control and/or usage? | ||||||
2 | Did the disciples use 'sidearms'? | John 18:10 | Searcher56 | 7809 | ||
Nolan ... Luke 22:36-38 is interesting. It appears that only two people were carrying swords. They probably Simon the Zealot - that was his background and Simon Peter, who only got the ear of Malchus. Jesus got after Peter (vs 11) and healed the ear (Luke 22:51). I do not think he was usuing it in self-defense. I do not think it advocates the use of sidearms or even a sword. Since there were no sidearms around in the Bible, we cannot say if the Bible advocates them. I also do not see anything saying we should have a weapon ... only 2 of them had one. They faced a lot more swords. |
||||||
3 | Did the disciples use 'sidearms'? | John 18:10 | Makarios | 7829 | ||
Thanks Steve. After reviewing several passages such as John 18:10, Matthew 26 and Luke 22:36-38, I have come to the conclusion that the disciples did not wear or use or advocate the use of sidearms. As you have said, the only two that did so were the two Simons- Simon the Zealot and Simon Peter. | ||||||
4 | Did the disciples use 'sidearms'? | John 18:10 | Morant61 | 8073 | ||
Greetings Nolan! I would agree that none of the passage advocate the use of a sword. However, I would also say that none of them prohibt it either. Most of the passages in the Gospels simply mention that some disciples were carrying a sword, while neither saying this was a good or bad thing. The only passage that seems to say anything about the morality of the situation is Luke 22:36-38. Jesus says to His disciples that (in contrast to earlier times) they should take a purse or a bag or a sword. The disciples, respond with a comment that they had two swords. To which, Jesus replies, "That is enough." What did Jesus mean? Since He didn't allow Peter to use his sword to fight for Him, I can't imagine that Jesus meant that two was sufficient. Since Jesus Himself said to get a sword, I can't imagine that it was immoral to do so (especially since several passages mention disciples carrying swords.) What does that leave? I think the words "that is enough" means "enough of this kind of talk." I think Jesus was frustrated that the disciples didn't understand that He was trying to warn them that times were changing. The point wasn't to actually go get a sword, a cloak, or a purse. The point was that the situation was going to change. As for sidearms today, I don't know of any Scripture that directly addresses the issue of the morality of weapons. Like anything else, they can be tools for good or tools for destruction. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||