Why Christians Should Buy Swords

One of the problems some folks have with the notion that Christians shouldn't use violence is that they see a contrasting expectation or perhaps contradicting command from Jesus in one particular passage of scripture. The passage in which Jesus commands his disciples to buy swords can bring confusion if one does not understand the context in which it exists. Below is the often quoted Luke 22:36-38.

He [Jesus] 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. It is written: ‘And 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.”

“It is enough” he replied.

I believe there are three important elements of context worth examining when dealing with this passage. 1) The preceding verses, 2) The prophecy quoted by Jesus in the selected verses, and 3) The procedeing verses. It is my belief that this command rests snuggly in a much larger message and that the larger message dictates the purpose and meaning of this command. The surrounding verses of a passage (or 'context') is how we are able to determine the truest message of that passage.

The Preceding Verses

To open Luke 22 Judas agrees to betray Jesus (vv.1-6). Following that we begin the account of the Last Supper. There are many small and significant things that occur in this passage but the main focus is the pointing towards Jesus' coming death. Beginning with verse 15 it is clear that Jesus is predicting to his disciples his approaching death (vv. 15-20). Jesus guides his disciples through the Passover feast and uses the time to repeatedly make it clear he is about to suffer and die and he encourages them to drink of the cup and eat of the bread, his blood and body, so that they may remember him (v. 19) and share in his kingdom (v.29-30). Jesus speaks of one who will betray him and immediately, as they tend to do, the disciples get into a squabble about which of them is greatest (obviously missing the point of what Jesus is trying to communicate to them). Jesus teaches them not to seek power but to seek service just as he has done with them (vv. 24-30). This is key to the coming conflict. We should be careful to divorce these words about service from his death predictions for we know from other scriptures that the two motifs are intertwined. After this ,Simon Peter, whom we shall refer to as Peter, swears to Jesus "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." Jesus informs Peter that Peter will end up denying him three times before morning comes.

Next, Jesus gives what may be seen as the introduction to the specific discussion concerning swords. Verse 35 states, "Then Jesus asked them, 'When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?' 'Nothing,' they answered." Why does Jesus say this? Is he simply trying to use a smooth segway to move from Peter's denial to the command for swords by saying "Remember that one time? Well, this is sort of the same..." or is he reminding the disciples of when he sent them out and they lacked nothing for reason other than to transfer topics of discussion? It seems to me that Jesus is reminding the disciples of the important truth that even when they have nothing they lack nothing thanks to God. They can trust God for all things. At the same time, I do believe Jesus is comparing the previous missions with this current mission. Whereas before the disciples were to leave purse, extra cloak, and all belongings, now Jesus demands they take purse, bag, and sword (the sword is so important that if one does not have a sword they ought to sell their cloak for one!). Many theologians have debated this teaching. Why would Jesus connect this reminder to the command to purchase swords? Most biblical scholars maintain that Jesus is warning his disciples about forthcoming trouble. We'll return to this shortly.

The Prophecy

When looking at the selected verses (36-38) there is a very interesting dynamic of the quoted prophecy. Jesus tells the disciples to each sell their cloak and buy a sword and then immediately quotes a prophecy about being numbered with transgressors and says that the prophecy must be fulfilled in him and that the prophecy is already in the process of being fulfilled. There is a connection there. But why would Jesus quote this prophecy? What does it have to do with the instruction for these disciples to buy swords? What does Jesus mean when he says to his followers "It is enough?" What could 2 swords be enough to do? Certainly 2 swords is not sufficient to protect 12 men. If the men coming against Jesus and the disciples have weapons then 2 swords certainly won't be enough to win that fight. When it comes to protection and fighting this is not enough to save anyone's skin. Therein may be the point. Jesus' skin needs to not be saved so that the souls of many might be saved! Jesus must go to the cross! He knows this. He just spent an entire meal talking about it! So how does Jesus get to the cross? What will it take for him to be given such an unjustified execution? Something must happen which allows the Jewish authorities to send Jesus to the Roman cross. What Jesus means by "It is enough" is answered already by the quoted prophecy.

Jesus quotes Isaiah 53:12 which states,

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

This is incarnation language that Jesus has adopted. He is proclaiming that this scripture is speaking of him, the God who became man. He has come to be numbered among the transgressors to make an intercession for them. It is no hidden truth that man has transgressed against God (Psalm 65:3) or that Jesus Christ becomes the transgression/sin of mankind upon the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). The language of life being poured out for others is also connected to this chapter of Luke through the Last Supper. Is there more to this transgressor talk though? How does this connect to the command to purchase swords? Jesus says that this prophecy is currently happening. The process of the fulfillment has begun. I believe there are a two strong conclusions we can draw about this prophecy being connected to the command to buy swords. 1) Jesus needs to be counted among transgressors not only in the sight of God but the sight of men and 2) Jesus is warning his disciples.

While this passage can speak of the Incarnation of Christ and his overall work I believe Jesus is using it in a more time specific manner. After he has risen we can look at the passage and make sense of it applying to his entire mission but Jesus is using the prophecy at a specific time in that mission and odds are that he's doing it for a reason. It would seem that he needs to be numbered among transgressors. That's the quoted line of this verse in Isaiah. Jesus' chief concern with this prophecy is being numbered among transgressors, so how does he achieve that? How is that to be fulfilled and how has it already started to be fulfilled? Some scholars argue that the command to buy swords is given so that the disciples will literally buy the swords, obeying Jesus' command, and appear to be transgressors, thus Jesus being numbered among transgressors when the chief priests arrive. Others argue that Jesus knew his disciples would misunderstand his command, buy the swords, and use them later and thus Jesus would still be numbered amongst transgressors. Both arguments end up in the same place and both see the command as a literal command. I agree. It seems that Jesus is telling his disciples to buy swords so that he can be numbered among transgressors. Another way to see this is to put the word '"Therefore" at the beginning of the sentence "It is written..." so as to trace the line of Jesus' thought. To recap: How is the prophecy fulfilled? By Jesus being with the disciples who look like or who actually become transgressors. How is it currently being fulfilled? The disciples are obtaining swords and misunderstanding Jesus; preparing the way for his being numbered as a transgressor when the time arrives. Jesus' primary focus is the prophecy. He needs to be caught with transgressors so he may go to the cross and fulfill his purpose. This is the main thrust of this passage. The swords are a gear in the greater machine, a drop in the creek. The command to buy swords is not the primary focus and thus must somehow serve the primary focus.

Yet, while Jesus is primarily concerned with his journey to the cross and the will of his Father (as we saw he agreed to follow according to his prayer only a few verses earlier in the garden) it seems he is also concerned with warning his disciples. Jesus' command seems to be both literal and figurative. If the the passage is figurative then what could Jesus be trying to communicate to his disciples?

The famous commentator Matthew Henry wrote of this passage, "Our Lord gave notice of a very great change of circumstances now approaching. The disciples must not expect that their friends would be kind to them as they had been. Therefore, he that has a purse, let him take it, for he may need it. They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves." Echoing this wisdom, the InterVarsity Press Commentary states, "The disciples take Jesus' remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it. As the arrest will show, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle. They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18)."

Some scholars such as David Stern* have commented that Jesus is not saying the disciples have an adequate amount of swords but rather that they have misunderstood him. He writes, "Yeshua [Jesus] is not inventorying his disciples' arsenal but saying, 'You have taken me too literally. I'm not talking about swords. End the conversation! Enough already!" I believe that Jesus is saying that the two swords are sufficient for his purposes but I also believe he is simultaneously saying what Stern argues. The disciples have misunderstood Jesus once again in thinking that the swords are for anything but fulfilling the prophecy he connected to the command. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept that Jesus is saying "It it enough" in a way that sounds more like "Enough of this foolishness!" even if that would have made just as much sense for him to say. I don't see scripture indicating that message until later.

The Proceeding Verses

Follow Jesus' statement that the two swords are enough he goes up the Mount of Olives with his disciples so that they may pray. Jesus is preparing for his arrest and crucifixion at this point. He has held the Last Supper, trying to prepare his disciples for the troubling times ahead, and now he seeks to prepare himself and to pray for his disciples (God knows they need it). The exhausted students fall asleep and in verse 46 Jesus says to them, "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation." What kind of temptation is Jesus concerned about? Any temptation? All temptation? Specific temptation? Jesus knows what is about to come and thus he knows what dangers and temptations lie ahead of his disciples this night and in the days and age to come. This means there are specific temptations Jesus wants his disciples to be guarded against. If the temptation is unclear now it will soon be seen.

Immediately Judas shows up and betrays Jesus. As this happens we see confusion from the disciples. They do not know how to handle the situation at hand. They should have prayed. The disciples are confused as to whether or not they should use their swords; if they should violently attack their enemy. They ask "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" clearly not knowing what the swords are for and not knowing their role in the fulfillment of the prophecy which is bearing fruit before their eyes. This, I believe is the temptation; They are tempted to not follow in the way of Christ in a time of difficulty and to get in the way of the fulfillment of the prophecy. If the disciples would follow Jesus' teachings then they would not get in the way, as it is, they are tempted to do the opposite. Instead of loving enemies and trusting in God as in the times when they had nothing they have the option to trust in the sword and strike. Without waiting for an answer from the Lord there is action (incredibly similar to the disobedient violence of Israel in the OT).**

Perhaps due to a lack of prayer one of the disciples, (the account in John tells us it is Peter) gives into temptation and strikes, cutting off the ear of one of the men seizing Jesus. Against this action Jesus calls out, "No more of this!" Jesus rebukes Peter. No more of this striking with swords, no more of this misunderstanding, no more not trusting in God as you've learned to do previously. No more of this way. How do we know that Jesus is specifically rebuking the use of the sword? He acts against it and heals the ear of his enemy who has been wounded by the sword. Jesus undoes the damage done by the sword. There is a wounding and then there is a healing. The power of the sword and the power of Christ's love. The action of a man who did not pray and the action of the one who prayed so hard his sweat was like blood. There is a stark contrast between Jesus and Peter in this moment and we are right to side with Jesus. This contrast illuminates Jesus' rebuke against the use of the sword. It seems that the buying of the swords, even just 2, was indeed enough. Using the swords is too much. In the Greek the words "It is enough" literally translate as "until this enough." Until this action, it was enough. Peter has gone too far.

Following this rebuke and healing Jesus turns to those seizing him and says something interesting. He says, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns" (vv.52b-53). Jesus asks why these men felt the need to approach him with weapons, as if he posed some sort of violent threat. He is not leading a rebellion, he is not a zealot (like Simon who was part of the zealot party which desperately desired to overthrow the Romans with their swords if needed). This question makes it clear that Jesus and his followers (who have been with him at all times including the previous days in the temple) do not pose a threat. There is no need for these men to seize Jesus with weapons. It's unnecessary. Jesus points out that there is no reason to lay a hand on him and in this seizing (which consists of weapons) the chief priests show their allegiance to darkness. The weapons aren't the problem but rather their opposition to Jesus. Darkness reigns in their apprehension of him. However, the weapons increase the obviousness of this rebellion against Jesus' kingdom and their allegiance to the rein of darkness because the weapons are in no way needed. And make no mistake, Jesus is not saying this because he had wished that they had come empty handed so that his disciples would have the upper hand in a knife fight. Again, that would go against Jesus' entire purpose.

This should make it absolutely clear that Jesus never intended for his disciples to use these swords against anyone. As Pastor Gregory Boyd points out in his short evaluation of this passage, "Given how Jesus responds to Peter’s use of the sword (he rebukes him), and given everything Jesus says about loving enemies, doing good to them, turning the other cheek, and so on, it’s clear that, whatever Jesus was up to in telling his followers to buy swords, he clearly didn’t intend for them to use them." The notion that Jesus is commanding his followers to buy swords for the purpose of using them in times of danger or attack goes against what we see happening in the full passage. If that were Jesus' intention then why the rebuke and why the statement to the chief priests? Why the healing? Why the contrast? While it is true that Jesus is mostly upset with Peter for getting in the way of the prophecy being fulfilled it wouldn't make sense to claim that Jesus is solely concerned with the prophecy. He is concerned for his disciples as well. He wants them to follow his Way! We can not read this passage of scripture and say that Jesus meant for his disciples to buy swords so that they could protect themselves after he left (which some want to argue). This would make his healing of the servant and his statement to the chief priests out of place. If he meant for his disciples to carry swords for protection then 2 swords for 12 men certainly wouldn't be enough, especially if the authorities were coming against the disciples with more weapons! In an arms race the disciples lose. Therefore Jesus could not possibly have meant for the swords to be used against enemies. Their purpose must be directly connected to the prophecy and to Jesus' notification that times were about to become difficult.

Church Father Tertullian once wrote, "The Lord, in disarming Peter, subsequently unbelted every soldier." While I don't believe that Jesus' specific aim here was to preach a message of nonviolence I agree with Tertullian that in this teaching Jesus does disarm every one of us who would draw a weapon against an enemy by reminding us that God has provided for us in the past and can continue to do so. Luke's message here is not one of nonviolence or pacifism and yet the message to love enemies and trust God in all circumstances (especially if they be hazardous to our health) is unmistakeable. Self-preservation seems antithetical to Jesus' focus in this passage which is self-sacrifice. It doesn't make sense for Jesus to promote self-sacrificing love for enemies by teaching it during his ministry and exampling it here while simultaneously teaching his disciples that they no longer need pick up their cross but a sword. Is Jesus contradicting himself are we reading it wrong? If we say that Jesus has changed his mind from commanding his disciples to pick up their cross to now pick up a sword then say Jesus is inconsistent. If we say we've misread the passage and that Jesus is still calling us to love enemies and do the will of God as he did by picking up our cross as self-sacrificing servants then we have a consistent Christ. The question becomes "Do we want our Christ or the Christ?" Only one saves because only one is truly willing to go to the cross.

Conclusion

So why should Christians buy swords? According to scripture they should buy swords so that Christ can be counted with transgressors and sent to the cross so that he may fulfill his purpose to die for all sinners. If a Christian has a sword outside of this context then they can still be biblical by beating that sword into a plowshare just as the Old Testament prophecies declare ought to be done by God's people (Isaiah 2:4, Joel 3:10, Micah 4:3). If we are going to invest in a sword let it be the sword of the Spirit (aka the Word of God) which is far more effective at doing the work of God since it can penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12).

The context of the passage, narrative flow of scripture, and the tradition of the church all lead the reader to conclude that Jesus is not promoting violent self-defense, violent defense of other, the American value of a right to bear arms, or even a literal command for his disciples (let alone future believers) to invest in weapons for the use of those weapons against enemies. If Jesus is giving any teaching on how to oppose attacks from enemies it is to trust in God, fighting as members of his kingdom ought to, without weapons (John 18:36, 2 Corinthians 10:4). If someone believes that Jesus intends for his followers to arm themselves with weapons so that they may fight against enemies then they are obligated to explain their position according to the context of the passage.

*David Stern is the author of the Jewish New Testament Commentary and Jewish Old Testament Commentary.

**Israel was instructed to always follow God into war and when she went ahead of God it went poorly for her. God keeps his promises to those who wait to receive them. God hands Israel's enemies over to her when He goes before them. This motif is studied and explained by Millard Lind in his book Yahweh is a Warrior; The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel.