| |
A hotly debated topic from Luke 22 is the notorious “two swords” passage. A brief study of the passage will give you many differing perspectives. Let’s look at the verses, and then the overall context.
Then Jesus asked his disciples, “When I sent you out that time without purse, bag, or shoes, did you lack anything?” “Not a thing,” they answered. [36] “But now,” Jesus said, “whoever has a purse or a bag must take it; and whoever does not have a sword must sell his coat and buy one. [37] For I tell you that the scripture which says, ‘He shared the fate of criminals,’ must come true about me, because what was written about me is coming true.” [38] The disciples said, “Look! Here are two swords, Lord!” “That is enough!” he replied.
Luke 22:35-38 GNB
It’s important to note that Jesus had been very strategic in how and where he taught over the final 10 days of his life. He knew that once he rode into Jerusalem as a victorious Savior, He was a dead man. The teachers of the law had been looking to get Him alone and because He was so strategic, the crowds were always around. Enter Judas, who agrees to betray Christ and lead the Roman officials to where Jesus is located at a time when there are no crowds around. Overall, there is a radical shift that takes place in the ministry of Christ as His public position goes from hospitable to hostile.
In this conversation with His disciples, I do not personally believe He is speaking literally with regards to the sword. Here are my reasons…
Jesus clearly states that his servants do not fight back against the powers of this world.
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
John 18:36 NASB
Peter draws his sword and cuts off the ear of a Roman official and Jesus rebukes him.
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Matthew 26:52 NASB
Jesus encourages his followers not to retaliate against violence.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ [39] “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Matthew 5:38-39 NASB
On top of this, I cannot find a verse in Acts where we read of the apostles carrying a money belt, bag, or sword with them, and church tradition tells us that almost every one of the apostles was killed for their faith without putting up any kind of resistance or self-defense.
So, what could Jesus be referring to here? I believe it’s a metaphor explaining the drastic change that’s about to happen for these men. Again, they have no idea what Jesus is about to go through or the backlash that will take place for His followers. Jesus is using this language to explain that this prophecy must be fulfilled, and things are about to get dangerous.
“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).”
IVP New Testament Commentary
“Mention of the need to purchase a sword adds to this picture a metaphorical reference to the coming reality. The possibility that Jesus’ followers are literally to respond to hostility with a sword—that is, with violence—is negated in Luk 22:49-51 and elsewhere in the Third Gospel “sword” has been used as an image of animosity (Luk 12:51-53; cf. Luk 2:34-35).
New International Commentary – New Testament
The reason he compares it to the first time He sent them out is because they were generally received with hospitality and needed nothing. Now, as they go out as marked men, and need to understand that everything will change. Does it mean that Jesus approves of them using violence to defend themselves? I think it’s highly unlikely given the consistency of His overall message in the verses above. In verse 38, they present Him with two swords to which Christ answers, “It is enough.” I take that, as several commentators do, to mean, “Enough of this.”
In the rare case that Jesus does mean taking a literal sword or two, in this case, I do not believe it’s justification for bloodshed, as we see no evidence of this in Acts. A sword would have had many practical uses outside of being used for violence.