The swords in Luke chapter 22

Good question. I never quite understood that.

This is part of the last instructions given by our Master before He was to die and ascend. He was preparing them for the persecution and hardships that they would endure when sent out into the world to preach the Gospel.

GQ Chris said:

I brought this up because there are people out there that believe that Jesus is a Pacifist, and that all arms should be layed down, and yet in this passage he is urging his followers to buy a sword.

Click to expand...

There were 11 of them and only 2 swords. He said that is enough. I doubt He was preparing them to do literal battle..You don't read in Acts about the disciples grabbing the swords and fighting the Romans or Jews.

For what it is worth, I sleep with a loaded shot gun in my bedroom, so I am not a hippy or something, but I do believe in the consistent application of non-aggressive principles laid out in the Scripture. Now, onto your question and points:

God is not a pacisifst per se. However, making this extra-biblical declaration about God's nature does not qualify as an accurate, positive statement about God's nature.

Luke 22:36 is a difficult passage to take as evidence in favor of sword ownership or any modern day equivalent, because 4 hours later Christ tells them "Those who live by the sword die by the sword."

It seems more like Christ told them to buy swords as part of what I would like to call "divine theatrics."

Before you laugh this off, please consider the context. Verse 37 says, "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." So, Christ offers an explanation as to why He tells them to get purses and buy swords. It is so when he was arrested, it would be apparent that he would be reckoned to be among the transgressors/criminals/lawless/felons/you get the point.

From the get go, this already instantly discounts any notion that Christ is talking about self-defense here. If anything, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, the stories of Christian converts that are soldiers are all much better evidence that physical self-defense and meting out of law is something that God does not forbid. However, this is not being talked about here. Obviously, Christ is talking about something else.

Now, before you say, "Oh, Christ would not go through the effort to have a couple swords present just so some prophecy can be fulfilled in such a way," you better reread your Scriptures. Joseph moved his family to Egypt, so that the Scripture may be fulfilled. Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on two donkeys to fulfill prophecy. Look at Old Testament examples of similar things, like parting the Red Sea. God could've just teleported the nation of Israel across the body of water, but God often opts for visible occurrences of events to be educative for us, so we may understand Him.

Now, if the context was not made clear enough in verse 37, we only have to read 12 verses later to see precisely how Christ reacts to Peter misunderstanding what He was getting at when he told them to buy swords:

When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Permit even this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51)

The episode continued in Matt 26:52-54

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. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?


Obviously, the owning of swords had to do with the fulfillment of Scriptures and to provide Christ the opportunity to caution His people to exercise restraint, a virtue obviously lost by Christians that live in ascendant, hegemonic societies.

Summary. In the proper context, it is impossible to read Jesus speech about swords any other way because:

1. The reason He gives is so that something in Scripture might be fulfilled (that being that the Son of Man is to suffer and die for sinners)
2. Peter WAS NOT using a sword he purchased earlier. The disciples literally found the swords three seconds after Jesus told them to go get one. Then they looked to Jesus as if to say, "Is this enough to fulfill Scripture?" and Jesus was like "it is enough."
3. The Disciples then use the swords, as they misinterpreted Jesus' arrest as what Christ was foretelling and Jesus tells them not to use them, warning them with a timeless platitude that "those who live by the sword perish by the sword."

It's like divine theater, and it is the opposite of a pro sword/gun/self defense message.

For what it is worth, I sleep with a loaded shot gun in my bedroom, so I am not a hippy or something, but I do believe in the consistent application of non-aggressive principles laid out in the Scripture. Now, onto your question and points:

God is not a pacisifst per se. However, making this extra-biblical declaration about God's nature does not qualify as an accurate, positive statement about God's nature.

Luke 22:36 is a difficult passage to take as evidence in favor of sword ownership or any modern day equivalent, because 4 hours later Christ tells them "Those who live by the sword die by the sword."

It seems more like Christ told them to buy swords as part of what I would like to call "divine theatrics."

Before you laugh this off, please consider the context. Verse 37 says, "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." So, Christ offers an explanation as to why He tells them to get purses and buy swords. It is so when he was arrested, it would be apparent that he would be reckoned to be among the transgressors/criminals/lawless/felons/you get the point.

From the get go, this already instantly discounts any notion that Christ is talking about self-defense here. If anything, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, the stories of Christian converts that are soldiers are all much better evidence that physical self-defense and meting out of law is something that God does not forbid. However, this is not being talked about here. Obviously, Christ is talking about something else.

Now, before you say, "Oh, Christ would not go through the effort to have a couple swords present just so some prophecy can be fulfilled in such a way," you better reread your Scriptures. Joseph moved his family to Egypt, so that the Scripture may be fulfilled. Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on two donkeys to fulfill prophecy. Look at Old Testament examples of similar things, like parting the Red Sea. God could've just teleported the nation of Israel across the body of water, but God often opts for visible occurrences of events to be educative for us, so we may understand Him.

Now, if the context was not made clear enough in verse 37, we only have to read 12 verses later to see precisely how Christ reacts to Peter misunderstanding[/i] what He was getting at when he told them to buy swords:

When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Permit even this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51)

The episode continued in Matt 26:52-54

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. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?


Obviously, the owning of swords had to do with the fulfillment of Scriptures and to provide Christ the opportunity to caution His people to exercise restraint, a virtue obviously lost by Christians that live in ascendant, hegemonic societies.

Summary. In the proper context, it is impossible to read Jesus speech about swords any other way because:

1. The reason He gives is so that something in Scripture might be fulfilled (that being that the Son of Man is to suffer and die for sinners)
2. Peter WAS NOT using a sword he purchased earlier. The disciples literally found the swords three seconds after Jesus told them to go get one. Then they looked to Jesus as if to say, "Is this enough to fulfill Scripture?" and Jesus was like "it is enough."
3. The Disciples then use the swords, as they misinterpreted Jesus' arrest as what Christ was foretelling and Jesus tells them not to use them, warning them with a timeless platitude that "those who live by the sword perish by the sword."

It's like divine theater, and it is the opposite of a pro sword/gun/self defense message.

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

Click to expand...

Re-posting this in ESV helps me understand a little better, I think. He's warning them that he's about to be executed (and leave not long after), and he won't be there to provide for them in the usual way. They need to prepare to return to normal life. That includes not only the swords for self-defense, but other provisions, also. This may have been one of those eras when the carrying of a personal weapon was considered a common necessity.

GQ Chris said:

He's not Pro Swords/guns? If He's not, Cops and Military are clearly in violation.

Click to expand...

Did you actually read anything I wrote? No matter your stance on the issue of owning weapons, it has no bearing on the passage you posted because clearly the passage is not about that.

To quote Matthew Henry:

Concerning what Jesus was really getting at with the "it is enough" comments:

The Galileans generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his disciples’ wearing them. But he intimates how little he would have them depend upon this when he saith, It is enough, which some think is spoken ironically: “Two swords among twelve men! you are bravely armed indeed when our enemies are now coming out against us in great multitudes, and every one with a sword!” Yet two swords are sufficient for those who need none, having God himself to be the shield of their help and the sword of their excellency, Deut. 33:29.

Click to expand...

Concerning non-violence:

He does not command the officers and soldiers to put up their swords that were drawn against him, he left them to the judgment of God, who judges them that are without; but he commands Peter to put up his sword, does not chide him indeed for what he had done, because done out of good will, but stops the progress of his arms, and provides that it should not be drawn into a precedent. Christ’s errand into the world was to make peace. Note, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual; and Christ’s ministers, though they are his soldiers, do not war after the flesh, 2 Cor. 10:3, 4...As Christ forbade his disciples the sword of justice (Matt. 20:25, 26), so here the sword of war.

Click to expand...

Again, it should be stated, understanding Luke 22:38 in the proper context does not mean there cannot be swords for self defense, soldiers or police. There are other passages in the Scripture that speak of powers, such as the government, where it says "it does not bear the sword for nothing" (Rom 13:4).

However, Christians require a consistent principle of non-violence that we can extrapolate from the Scripture.

I wrote about this in much more detail here: A Response to God, Guns and John Piper | Reformed Christian Theology

To sum up what the Scripture speaks about self-defense, it cannot be used as defense against religious persecution, someone stealing your property, and at least some degree of non-religious physical abuse (we are talking about slapping here). This leaves open defending others that you personally see in harms way (not going out of your way like a vigilante looking for souls to save), defending your family, perhaps self-defense in extreme cases (someone trying to kill you over money or revenge, rape, etc.).

The fact that Christian liberty permits us to own swords, guns, and F22 Raptors is not justification for using them in ways that do not glorify God.

he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy a sword

"These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself. In "seven" ancient copies of Beza's, it is read in the future tense, "he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy". (John Gill)