Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 18:10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. |
Subject: Did the disciples use 'sidearms'? |
Bible Note: 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 |