Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[Midnight Cowboy]

Luke 22:35-38

[35] And Jesus said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So His disciples said, “Nothing.”
[36] Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
[37] For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
[38] So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

This passage has me confused. Especially the part with the sword. In the gospel of John, and I think the others too, He never commands them to get swords. When Peter cuts off the ear of the servant, it seems like the sword comes out of nowhere. But Luke implies Jesus commanded His disciples to carry swords and fight when needed. Even His rebuke later on, of the disciple who cut off the soldiers ear, is as follows:

Luke 22:49-51

[49] When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”
[50] And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
[51] But Jesus answered and said, “Permit even this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.

From this it seems like the disciples weren't in the wrong for having swords, but for using them at the wrong time. He did command them to get swords in the first place or at least make it okay for them to have them.

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."

This seems to be a warning against using weapons. Not just that the disciples used it in the wrong place [like Luke suggest] but that having them in general is unwise. Which makes me wonder, does that passage in Luke fit the narrative of the other gospels? So what exactly are these passages conveying concerning weapons and fighting—considering the great length Jesus went to in Matthew 5 to proclaim pacifism towards evil?

Which then I have to ask: is it okay for Christians to keep swords [weapons in general]?

[jimwalton]

The passages in question are not making any kind of a comment on whether or not it's OK for Christians to bear weapons. They are specific to the context of whether or not Jesus was going to lead an armed rebellion against Rome, which He was not. It pertains to whether Jesus was guilty of treason or not—the charge that was trumped up against Him.

> Luke 22.35.

This is a reversal of earlier traveling orders, in order to fulfill Isa. 53.12. Jesus is not preparing them for legitimate defense, but instead for His capture, for the fulfillment of prophecy that he would be found among compromising company. He is here fulfilling Scripture, but at the same time fighting a temptation to be Messiah by force in a holy war. Matthew (26.47-56) projects a vision of the apocalyptic battle; the Lucan story soberly portrays the formal guilt of attempted armed insurrection into which Jesus was placed by the presence of weapons and by Peter’s defense.

Richard Hays comments, "This reference to a sword has a figurative purpose. On the night of his arrest, just after his last supper with the disciples, Jesus reminds his followers of an earlier phase in their mission when they could rely on the goodwill and hospitality of those to whom they preached; they must now, however, be prepared for a time of rejection and persecution. They will need to take along their own provisions, and the sword serves as a vivid symbol of that tact that they must now expect to encounter opposition. The saying can be regarded only as grimly ironical, expressing the intensity of the opposition that Jesus and the disciples will experience, endangering their very lives.

A.T. Robertson writes, "[In contrast to their ministry mission in Galilee,] they are to expect persecution and bitter hostility (Jn. 15.18-21). Jesus does not mean that his disciples are to repel force by force, but that they are to be ready to defend his cause against attack. Changed conditions brings changed needs."

> In the gospel of John, and I think the others too, He never commands them to get swords

The Gospel writers are all very selective about what material they include. They are each making a different point about Jesus.

> Luke 22.51

Robertson writes, "The meaning of this is not clear. If addressed to Peter and the other disciples, it means they are to allow this much violence against Jesus. This is probably the idea. If it is addressed to the crowd, it means they are to excuse Peter for his rash act."

Craig Keener says, "A messiah who would heal his attackers was not part of anyone’s messianic picture."

> Matthew 26:52

Tremper Longman writes, "Jesus is the divine warrior, the one whom the OT expected, but he has heightened and intensified the battle. The goal of warfare has now been elevated, and the weapons for this war have changed. Jesus battles spiritual powers and authorities. He directs Peter to put away the sword, because winning this battle involves dying rather than killing."

And the meaning of the second part is somewhat obvious. Violence breeds more violence, and eventually those who perpetrate violence will also be the victims of it. Violence has a reciprocal nature.

> is it okay for Christians to keep swords [weapons in general]?

Yes. This text isn't addressing that question at all except the idea that Christians who bear weapons can expect to have weapons used against them. But, hey, even peaceful people who don't use weapons have weapons used against them.

[Midnight Cowboy]

I see, thanks for the insight.