Thread: Did Jesus Instruct His Followers to Buy a Sword?
Admin
Did Jesus Instruct His Followers to Buy a Sword?
Posted : 27 Jun, 2011 06:31 PM
James intros: I do not agree with much of what the author states below......
Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword?
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. 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." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)
This is the one New Testament passage which may be taken to advocate the use of a sword (or any other weapon) in self-defence. But while Jesus does indeed tell us followers to buy a sword, several features must be noted:
While in general it is a good principle to look at a Bible passage on its own before comparing it to the rest of the Bible, in this case the narrative continues later that night: when on of the disciples used a sword, Jesus rebuked him for doing so.
A rebuke is recorded in three of the four gospels: Matthew 26:52 ('"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'), Luke 22:51 ('But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.'), and John 18:11 ('Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"'). Mark does not record a rebuke, but does note that while one disciple used a sword, Jesus allowed himself to be arrested peacefully (implying that he disagreed with the use of force).
Some commentators cite John 18:11 to suggest that Jesus was only opposed to the use of weapons on this particular occasion, because it was God's purpose for Jesus to be arrested. But the rebuke recorded in Matthew is far more wide-ranging ('for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'), and appears to condemn, or at least very strongly discourage, all use of weapons.
The group comprised Jesus and the eleven remaining apostles, and possibly some others. Two swords were not enough to defend such a group. Why then did Jesus say 'That is enough'?
Jesus ties the use of the sword to the Scripture being fulfilled ('And he was numbered with the transgressors'). So does the use of the sword only refer to this present occasion, when Jesus was to be arrested like a criminal (transgressor)?
On the other hand, there was not time for them to sell their cloak and buy a sword, suggesting Jesus was looking towards the future.
If Jesus was telling them to have a sword handy (for self-defense) as they went into the world preaching the gospel, why then do Acts and the epistles consistently show the disciples accepting persecution peacefully? (Darrel Bock's commentary gives the following examples: Acts 4:25-31, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5).
Generally, commentators have taken one of two different approaches to this verse:
The first approach is to see Jesus' words as a symbolic or metaphorical. He was not really telling them to buy or use swords. He was simply using the metaphor of a sword to describe the current crisis. When the disciples took his words literally ('See, Lord, here are two swords'), Jesus simply drops the subject by saying 'That is enough'.
This approach works well except for one thing: why did Jesus need to use such a metaphor at all, given the confusion that arose from it? (Beginning later that night with the disciples, but continuing to the present day!)
The second approach is to see it as a reverse of the rules for mission given in Matthew 10:5-14, Mark 6:7-13 and Luke 10:1-12. (And which Jesus refers back to in Luke 22:35, above). Under those instructions, the disciples went out on mission essentially with no provisions, and trusted God for all their needs. But Jesus is now reversing those rules: they are to provide for themselves, and that includes self-defence.
The problem with this approach is its apparent contradiction with Jesus pacifist statements elsewhere, including Matthew 26:52 ('for all who draw the sword will die by the sword') later that night. Perhaps that latter statement can be taken to apply to that time only (so have a meaning like, 'if any of you disciples draw a sword, you will get yourself killed'). In any case, if this interpretation is favoured, Jesus' pacifist statements must also be taken into account, and so violent self-defense becomes appropriate only in the most desparate of situations.
Between these two extremes is the suggestion that swords were appropriate for this time only - that is, time of Jesus' arrest.
While this has the positive that Jesus ties the crisis to prophecies concerning his arrest ('It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.'), there are still two problems. Why does he advocate swords at this time only, and then tell his disciples not to use them? And why does he tell his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword, when there is no time to do that? Therefore I would suggest that this solution does not work.
Finally, there is the suggestion that Luke 22:35-38 is a tradition in favour of self-defence, and is in direct contradiction to the passages which condemn the use of violence.
I am sure many will be attracted to this view. I do not think it is necessary. The problem (in my mind) is not contradiction, but that we do not have sufficient information to decide whether given passages are metaphorical or literal, timeless or specific.
Christians who take this view still have the problem of deciding between the competing claims of Luke 22:35-38, and pacifist passages such as Matthew 26:52 and Matthew:38-48.
I think we can definitely rule out option (3), and I see no benefit in option (4). That leaves options (1) (the sword is metaphorical) and (2) (self-defence is OK). My personal opinion is that metaphorical interpretation is harder to justify and so this passage provides a limited justifcation for fighting in self-defense.
If that is so, and God does allow the use of violence in self-defence, we must note the following caveats:
Violent self-defence (i.e. the use of weapons in self-defense) can only be used as a last resort. There is no record of Jesus or the apostles ever resorting to it, despite extreme persecution.
If we are fighting attackers off, we must still continue to love them. To me, that means taking all possible means to minimise harm to all parties - as if the attacker was a member of our own family.
Violence must never be against a ruling authority, however much we dislike or disagree with it, because in such a situation peaceful resistance is always possible. It can only be used in the chaos of a simple violent attack on ourselves.
In light of Romans 13 (Click here for a fuller discussion of Romans 13), which says that all authorities (even the enemy) are ordained by God, we may add two further principles if we allow war in self defence:
If the defence is won, there is no justification for then proceeding to attack the other country, because their government was instituted by God also.
If the defence is lost, then the new government must be accepted. While it may be opposed peacefully, there is no justification for a continued guerilla war against it. This goes against both Romans 13 (the accepting of governing authorities) and the principle of loving our enemy.
So yes, Luke 22:35-38 may provide some justification for fighting in self-defence. But, in light of other teaching of Jesus, it can only be used in strict self-defence, and must not be divorced from his command to love our enemies.
I don't think Jesus was encouraging his disciples to go buy a sword for the purpose of willful violence , but as protection in defence against the enemy, because the times would change and Jesus would no longer be on earth with them.
If you notice in verse 35, when He first sent them out, He requested that they take nothing with them, no money no books or anything.. this was to establish their faith and trust that God would take care of them and protect them. And that they should depend upon Him for all their needs, and those God had put in their path for everything the needed..
When He sents them out this time in this passage in verse 36, He tells them to go prepared for whatever may take place, and to sell their belongings and buy a sword. He also tells them that they could take their books and a few personal items, this was because their faith had increased and they had need to be prepared for troubles and danger ahead of them. This was also during the time they would be with him upon His arrest and they needed ot be ready for any violence that would come upon them.
If you remember, Peter had the sword and when they arrested Jesus he over reacted and cut off the servants ear, and Jesus told him to put it away...this was also done to prove that if they cared weapons with them, they would most likely be quick to use them a Peter had done without thinking twofold lesson here... as He told them you live bythe sword, you wil dies by the sword... Jesus is not advocating violence, but He does tell us to always be ready for violence.
Love your enemies has nothing to do with having a sword... love your enemy is about not vindicating yourself against your enemies when they have done you wrong.
I don't think there is any place in the Bible that I've read of, where in we are taught not to protect ourselves against the danger of the enemy when there is a need to defend ourselves. Even God throughout the Old Testament was a warrior... just my 1 cent on this article :laugh:
Matthew 26:50-54: Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested Him. With that one of Jesus companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels. But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way." Which explains why Jesus told his disciples to get 2 swords in Luke 22:36-38 .
John 18:36: Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest from the Jews. But now My kingdom is from another place."
Matthew 5:38-44: Jesus says:"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' {See Ex 21:24, Lev 24:20 & Deut 19:21} "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well...You have heard that it was said. 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' {See Leviticus 18:19} But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
James 5:12 "Above all my brothers, do no swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes and your "no," or you will be condemned!" {See Matt 5:33-37}
2 Corinthians 10:3,4: "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are NOT the weapons of the world."
The only weapon a NT saint may use is the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.
The Amish are some of the very few Christians who follow these NT commands. They believe you should not join the army and become a professional killer or make an oath and swear that you will obey a superior officer who may order you to bomb and kill 100,000 Japanese civilians including about 30,000 children.
However, the Amish don't believe in demonstrating or preaching that their government should not make war. Like the Civil War where Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists killed each other.
I think Jesus' words are symbolic or metaphorical to point out that we should fight for the sake of the Kingdom of God to save people and to reach this goal we need to sell everything.
To give what we have, to get what we need...people for God.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me,
And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
This was fulfilled,in accordance with the will of YHWH,and the roman laws of occupation.
In Roman times,when they had concuered a people,they would not allow the people to have weapons.
This was to keep the people from uprisng against Roman rule.
This was also true during the time the Philistines occupied Israel.
1Samuel 13:19 Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:
1Sa 13:20 But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.
1Sa 13:21 Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.
1Samuel 13:22 So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.
I do believe the Government in this country has been doing the same,it is called Turn in your weapons for cash.
