[Mrs. Don-o]

They said "Here are two swords" and He said, "Enough."

Two swords for 12 men?

Enough for what?

Enough for them to symbolically be classified as criminals, transgressors, it seems.

Read through the whole passage and you'll see what I mean.

Luke 22:35-38

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. For it is written: ‘he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"That is enough," he replied.

The disciples did not understand this, and as Jesus was being arrested, Peter attempted to defend him by reaching for one of the swords, and striking the servant of the High Priest, cutting off his ear. Jesus miraculously healed the wound, and then rebuked Peter:

Matthew 26:52-53: "Put your sword back in its place… for all who take the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?"

I'm not arguing for Ivory Snow, 99 44/100% pacifism here, and I don't think Jesus is, either. But I am supplying necessary context.

[yarddog]

You are absolutely right. It was to fulfill prophecy.

But it still shows that a couple of them carried swords.

[Red Badger]

“Enough”......I think He was referring to fulfillment of prophecy...........

[Flaming Conservative]

Wow. I never saw that before! Thank you!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Except... (Luke 22:38):

...it was not the possession of swords that identified Jesus as a criminal but the false charges that He had claimed to be a king opposed to Caesar.

Best

[Mr Rogers]

“For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.”

Under US law, I can carry a gun and use it to defend myself or others from serious injury or death. I am also allowed to use force to prevent crimes. Although I am not a cop, the idea of “militia” - the Constitutional term predates any police department in America - allows for common citizens to be ready to stop crime and protect others. That is why we have a right to arms, in part - because the ‘militia’ needed them!

IIRC, up thru the 1960s, it was technically illegal for a fit, able adult male to refuse to serve in a posse. The law would call on members of the ‘militia’ to join in a ‘posse’ to pursue and arrest criminals. This idea of a citizens personally enforcing the law isn’t practiced too often. But it lives on in our right to both self-defense and to stop others from hurting the innocent.

Like the article suggests, we are not to use force to protect our dignity or our pride - but we CAN use force, legitimately, with full government approval - to protect the innocent or ourselves from significant harm.

HOW significant depends on state laws, as does any ‘duty to retreat’.