Peter Carried a Sword.

[Sojourner]

I was looking into why Peter carried a sword as referenced in Matt 26:51 and came across this article that I would like to share with you which suggests that if alive today Peter would be an NRA member and so forth. It is an interesting picture that he paints!

Please feel free to add your thoughts for and against, I have often wondered if the disciples carried swords in their daily lives or if the Gethsemane incident was isolated?

"That’s right. The apostle Peter carried a sword. And from what the scriptures tell us about him, he not only carried one, but was highly proficient with one too. He wasn’t afraid to use it either (Matt 26:51). If Peter were alive today he would be a card-carrying member of the NRA packing heat wherever he went. And the bad guys would be afraid.

I know, I know. To some this doesn’t sound too Christian like of me to be promoting gun ownership. I understand that you fuzzy wuzzy Christians panic even at the thought of owning a gun and you think you’re above having to protect yourself with such violent weapons. I know you don’t think there is no reason for owning them, because after all, God will protect you. Right?

Wrong.

If a Christian does not have the sense to do all they can to protect themselves and their families, then God will likely not waste His time with them. We can’t expect God to do everything for us, nor should we ask Him to do something we can do ourselves. We are His servants. We are supposed to serve Him. We’re not to expect Him to wait on us hand and foot for every single thing in our life. God didn’t create us to be helpless, dependent, socialistic beings. Christ expects us to have the attitude and actions of an overcomer.

Now this isn’t to say God won’t protect those who serve Him, He will. It’s His promise.

As it is written:

There shall no evil befall thee, Neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. He shall give His angels charge over thee, To keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, Lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. –Psalms 91:10-12

However, we must first do everything we can to protect ourselves if we expect to receive this promise. When we’ve done that, then He will step in and take care of the rest. He will take care of the things we cannot.

To do nothing and expect Him to do everything is equivalent to “tempting the Lord” (Matt 4:6-7). And that definitely isn’t something we want to do. That would be in violation of His commandments.

But didn’t Jesus tell Peter to put away his sword?

Yes He did. Let’s take a look.

And behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.

The Jesus saith unto him, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” –Matthew 26:51-52

It also says something similar to this in the book of Revelation.

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience of the saints. –Revelation 13:10

But these scriptures say nothing about giving up your right to defend yourselves from those who wish to harm you. The point Jesus was trying to make to Peter, and to us, is that we are not supposed to be “militant” when spreading the gospel. We are not to use weapons or any kind or use coercion to win people over to the Lord. This does not work.

Timing is another issue. Jesus told Peter to put his sword down because God’s plan was to have Jesus delivered up to be crucified for the sins of the world. That’s why Jesus said to Peter “how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled?” If Peter had been successful in staving off the servants of the high priest with the sword, then Jesus’s mission on earth would have been left unfulfilled.

There comes a similar time when we should put down our swords as well, just like Peter, so that prophecy can come to pass (Rev 13:10). But this does not happen until the Antichrist’s New World Order is in place ruling the world. Because at that time, the only successful method we’ll have against the “beast” anyways is to peacefully protest and testify against it. It will be time to bear our crosses. If we try and use the sword at that time, God has promised that we will fail.

But that is then. And this is now.

So our message to Obama, liberals, socialists, and progressives who want to take away our guns, is this:

I don’t care what executive orders you sign, what unconstitutional laws you pass, or if you send someone to my door to take away my guns. MY NEIGHBORS AND I WILL STAND TOGETHER AND WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP OUR GUNS!

In His Service,

Pastor Ben Heath

http://christianovercomers.com/blog/2013/01/26/peter-carried-a-sword-i-carry-a-gun/

[Gregory Matthews]

It is always good to look a Biblical text up and to read it in context. Yes, Matthews 26:51 tells us that Peter drew his sword and used it to defend Christ.

But, read on: In the very next verse (Verse 52) Christ says:

Quote:

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

I do not think that any reasonable person could read that verse and suggest that Christ approved of the action of Peter.

There is also some support for the idea that Peter was actually carrying a knife, rather than what we would call a sword. But, that idea cannot be proved.

[Tom Wetmore]

Probably a long curved knife, a dagger, easily concealed from the Romans. It was a practice of the Zealots to keep a concealed dagger to use against the Romans should the opportunity arise. A faction of the Zealots became known as the dagger men. It does show the mixed ideology of the disciples. There were Zealots among the disciples of Jesus.

Jesus' rebuke of Peter was more than an admonition against violence and that violence begets more violence, true though it may be. It was a contemporary observation against the violent practices of the Zealots. Their punishment for their acts of revolt against Rome were punishable by death. And common practice was to execute a murderer in the way he murdered others. So if you kill using the sword, your punishment for your crime will be to be executed by the sword. And since Peter clearly drew his sword in front of sufficient witnesses, his act of bravado against a mob would have been punished, even if he survived the fight that could have resulted had Jesus not intervened and even set the matter right by healing the wounded ear.

[Gregory Matthews]

Zealot: There is some thought that Simon was a Zealot. See Luke 6:15 & Acts 1:13.

Whether this was actually true and its meaning is debated by some.

The issue is that at least some of the Zealots carried out their mission in life by the murder of their enemies. The extent to which this was done is debated. Also, there are some that say that such developed at some time after the death of Christ, not that the two were related.

However, as I understand it, the majority view is that such was done during the time of Christ.

As to Peter carrying a knife: The Greek word translated as sword was translated at least once in the LXX as knife, but in another passage.

[Gail]

I read in Edersheim that it was a law, albeit disputed, that Jews could not carry a sword on holy days. Not everyone obeyed this Jewish law or agreed with it. But I thought it an interesting side note.

[Tom Wetmore]

I also have heard, but do not have any source to confirm it at this point, that the Romans took a dim view of the Jews caring weapons. It may have been an offense or at least a perceived threat, against the occupying army to do so. Those who did were suspected of supporting or at least being sympathetic to an armed revolt against Rome, which is what the Zealots advocated. So it would seem that anyone with a sword would be suspect. Concealing a dagger under ones robe was a matter of stealth, but also a means of avoiding punishment by the Romans.

It is interesting to compare the various gospel accounts of this incident. Only John identifies the one taking out his sword as Peter. The other gospels just say "one who was with him". But only Matthew records the statement by Jesus that those who use the sword will die by the sword. Matthew was writing to a primarily Jewish audience that would have perhaps understood this best in the context of their history and more immediately the context of the times in which armed revolt against the Romans was still a hot issue. In a sense it was a distinct message for his intended audience.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I don’t care what executive orders you sign, what unconstitutional laws you pass, or if you send someone to my door to take away my guns. MY NEIGHBORS AND I WILL STAND TOGETHER AND WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP OUR GUNS!

Forty one words to establish the hardness of the heart in stone, unwilling to admit there is another Way. Seven Words to reveal the Way.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Mark 12:31 KJV

And I do admit his correct theology below.

Quote:

nor should we ask Him to do something we can do ourselves.

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."John 15:5 KJV

God cares! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

Pastor Ben Heath is well known on the Internet. Here is a comment from him:

Quote:

“So Pastor Ben, are you saying that everyone who has committed adultery today is deserving of the Death Penalty?”

I think God already answered that in Leviticus 20:10. And who are we to question that? However, if there was no law in place during the time of the offense, then no, I don’t think you go back and punish everyone for things they did prior to the law being in place. That wouldn’t help anything. You see this severe punishment was supposed to be a deterrent to prevent people from destroying their families, their neighbor’s families, as well as civilization itself. It’s not so much a deterrent after the fact. In order for this law to have it’s true effect it must be known beforehand by everyone what the consequences of their actions would be and it would have to be carried out fairly and without respect of persons.

So yes, I do believe America should re-institute the Law of Adultery along with the rest of God’s Law, just like our forefathers did in the early American colonies.

It must be realized that committing adultery with another man’s wife is virtually equivalent to murdering his entire family. Many of you who grew up in broken families can probably attest to this. A broken family is very much like having a death in the family, it’s horrible. That is why God’s Law demands a severe punishment for it. So I’m not going to argue with God about it. I’m just not.

There is one thing I don’t think anyone could disagree with. If Biblical Adultery Laws were in place in America today I am willing to bet the divorce rate wouldn’t be at 50% like it is now. It would be much, much lower. Because people would think twice about skipping out on their husbands or wives to fulfill their own selfish desires. It just wouldn’t be worth it! Who in the world would want to die for a night of selfish pleasures with their neighbor’s wife?

Adultery to be punished by death!

[Tom Wetmore]

I think perhaps this so-called pastor is a thinly disguised anti-government nut-job that is more dangerous than the supposed threats and dangers for which he claims the need to be armed to the teeth. It seems to me to be an effort to hide a love of violence, force and gun idoliatry behind twisted religousiity and false patriotism.

[CoAspen]