If a common person carrying a sword in Roman times was “illegal,” or simply “inappropriate,” why did the disciples have two swords at the last supper? Shouldn’t Jesus have told them to get RID of them and NOT to carry them, if swords were wrong to have? Shouldn’t Peter also have been arrested at the betrayal for having such a weapon on him? Actually, it sounds more like it was fairly routine for normal people to carry weapons then.

Using our(rather recent)stigma against personal weapons, we run all over and around the Luke 22 reference to “buying a sword” by trying to make it a spiritual sword only. Why not also make the other parts of the provisions spiritual only? The spiritual connotation justly can be applied, but the disciples clearly understood that He meant PHYSICAL items, and he did not correct their (mis?)understanding. Was He trying to mislead them? If so, He succeeded wildly. Why didn’t he clarify his meaning even a little?

As for Peter’s use of a sword at the betrayal, Jesus knew there was nothing to be gained by fighting to save him. In fact, it could have thwarted God’s plan for him to die.

We must see the words for what they ARE, not for what we WISH they were. Let us not try to read back our 21st century ideas and social stigmas into 1st century culture and society. All it will do is force strange interpretations into our understanding of scripture.

Commentary by Joe Lochamy
Posted on: 5/26/2009 13:49 pm

Thanks Mr. Celiktemur

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 5/4/2009 23:04 pm

Jason,
Although this is not a direct answer to your question, it seems that those who carried swords in those days were regarded as potential criminals or even bandits. So I would assume this was not regular practice, at least for those who cared about a good reputation.

Commentary by Bahadır Celiktemur
Posted on: 5/4/2009 12:31 pm

Does anyone know if the Romans allowed common people to carry swords?

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 4/22/2009 17:56 pm