Most people who study the life of Jesus come away convinced that he taught and practiced nonviolence, even if they find it hard to make such a commitment themselves. There are a few passages in the gospels, though, that seem to contradict this impression. These few passages inevitably seem to come up in discussions of whether Christians should be nonviolent, and whether Christian churches should be peace churches. I'm going to address one of these passages here, and three others in commentaries that will also appear on this Web site.

There are two places where Jesus seems to speak positively about weapons in relation to his mission and that of his disciples, one each in Matthew and Luke. I deal with the passage in Luke here, and the one in Matthew in another commentary.

Luke 22:35-36, in which Jesus counsels his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords, is a difficult text on any understanding. It comes at the Last Supper, after Jesus has delivered the familiar words about his body and blood. After those words Luke inserts a series of dialogues, most of which are not found in any of the other gospels in connection with the Supper (though they occur in other contexts). First comes a dispute among the disciples about who is the greatest, to which Jesus responds by insisting that the greatest among them, like Jesus himself, must be as a servant (Luke 22:24-27, compare Mark 9:33-37; 10:35-45). Then there is a promise that Jesus' disciples will receive kingship when Jesus does, and will sit on thrones as judges of Israel (Luke 22:28-30, comparable to Matthew 19:27-28). Next Jesus turns to Simon Peter and warns him of his approaching denial due to his being "sifted" by Satan (Luke 22:31-34, similar to Mark 14:27-31).

Finally, in Luke 22:35-38, just before they go out to the Mount of Olives, Jesus compares the disciples' current situation with the time when he had sent them out on mission with neither purse (i.e., money sack) nor bag nor anything else for their journey (Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-12). They had lacked nothing then; but now, he says, "Whoever has a purse should take it along, and likewise a bag, and whoever does not have one should sell his cloak and buy a sword. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was counted among the lawless.' For that which concerns me has its consummation." The disciples then point out that they have two swords among them, and he replies, "It is enough."

These instructions are not comparable to anything in any of the other gospels, and it is quite possible that they are Luke's own creation. Be that as it may, there is of course no immediate objection to taking them literally, as the disciples in the story do. Things have changed, it won't do to go wandering about so vulnerably anymore, so they should carry the items normally worn by male travelers, including a sword. (The "sword" in question was actually a dagger, not a full-length sword.) Yet it seems odd that Jesus would think two swords were enough for twelve (if not more) people. If only two of them have swords, why doesn't he have the others go out at once and buy more, as he has just said they should? In fact, that instruction is never carried out, neither in Luke (or any other gospel) nor in Acts, the sequel to this gospel written by the same author. At a critical turn of events, in what seems to be a tone of deep seriousness or even urgency, Jesus tells his disciples to do something quite specific; yet he and they both proceed to act as if he had never said it. It seems unlikely, then, that these words are to be taken literally.

A straightforward, literal interpretation of these words also runs into trouble in the story of Jesus' arrest that comes shortly afterward. After Jesus' anguished prayer on the Mount of Olives, Judas arrives leading a crowd of Temple authorities to arrest him. Those with Jesus see what is coming, and ask if they should strike with their swords. One of them, not waiting for permission, attacks the High Priest's slave and cuts off his right ear. But Jesus, rather than encouraging this use of the very swords he apparently commended them for having, says something unclear to his disciples; heals the slave; then challenges his opponents for coming out at night with swords and sticks themselves, as if he were a bandit, instead of arresting him in the Temple in broad daylight (Luke 22:47-53). The words Jesus says after the attack on the High Priest's slave are very difficult to translate. They could mean something like "Allow this much," or "Let it go at that," or "Have done with this." Most contemporary translators take them to mean, "No more of this!" -- i.e., as an instruction to Jesus' disciples to stop fighting.

What sense does it make, though, for Jesus to urge his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords if they need to, only to tell them a few minutes later not to use the few swords they have? Only in Luke do the disciples ask whether they should attack with their swords, and their question is a very obvious reference back to the dialogue after the Last Supper. Therefore it seems to provide a kind of commentary on that dialogue, a guide for interpreting it -- or at least for how it should not be interpreted. It is not to be taken literally as a commandment to acquire and bear arms; if it were, Jesus would not (a) be satisfied with two swords, (b) tell his disciples to stop using even those two, and (c) undo the effects of their use. In fact, the events at Jesus' arrest may indicate that his comment "It is enough" (Luke 22:38) means, "All right, that's enough, you folks with your swords clearly aren't getting my point."

What is the point, though? What does the instruction "whoever does not have one should sell his cloak and buy a sword" mean? It goes along with taking purses and bags for a journey, and also with Jesus' assertion that he must be "counted among the lawless" in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12. How does one get ready to be "counted among the lawless"? Jesus' answer to that is ironic. He is about to be arrested, tried, and crucified as an outlaw; very well then, let his followers behave like a gang of thugs, grab their bags to fill up with loot, and get a grip on their swords! He's going to be strung up between two criminals -- Luke makes a point of calling them that (22:32-33) -- so his disciples might as well equip themselves for the part. What, they only have two swords? Well, that's enough -- since Jesus is not seriously giving them instructions, only making an ironic joke out of the whole situation. His disciples don't seem to get the joke; but is that anything new? Indeed, it has been suggested that the disciples' use of purses, bags, and swords in this moment is part of their failure under the testing of Satan, the same failure that includes their dispute about greatness and Peter's denial of Jesus (see 22:24-26, 31-34). They want to be great, they deny Jesus when they feel themselves endangered, they fortify themselves with goods and weapons -- it sounds all too much like the failures of the church in many ages.

Jesus' directive that his disciples should take their purses and sell their cloaks and buy swords is also reminiscent of an earlier set of instructions, in Luke 12:32-33. There, in the context of material that Matthew places in the Sermon on the Mount, Luke inserts a reassurance that it is God's good pleasure to give Jesus' "little flock" the Kingdom. Therefore, they should sell their belongings and give the proceeds in charity, thus acquiring "purses that do not wear out," a treasure in heaven that never fails. Sell what you have and get a heavenly purse -- take your earthly purse, sell your cloak, and buy a sword; the contrast seems deliberate. Luke 12 has an exhortation to abandon the world's sources of security in favor of the security that comes from God. Luke 22 has ironic mockery of a situation where those who have been without security will be considered threats to security -- and may even treat their attempt to rearm themselves for security as falling under Satan's influence. Both contexts also speak of receiving a kingdom from God (compare Luke 12:32 with 22:29), perhaps suggesting both that the Kingdom God gives is all the security disciples need, and that its promise is so threatening to the world that those who live for it and by it will be regarded as criminals.

Of course, it is true that the disciples do actually possess two swords. Does this tell us something about the nature of following Jesus? If Jesus was that much of a pacifist, what were his followers doing bearing arms? It's a valid point as far as it goes; but it doesn't go very far. As noted above, the "swords" in question were only short daggers, of a kind that scholars often characterize as standard equipment for travelers in that culture. In fact, the more relevant question is, if wearing these daggers was so commonplace, why weren't more of Jesus' followers so equipped? Why were there only two swords among them? Going on a journey without a sword was like going without a bag of supplies: it left a man vulnerable and defenseless. Why were nearly all of Jesus' disciples so ill equipped -- unless it was precisely their discipleship that had made them that way?

Jesus was evidently not hard-nosed about this, and some of his followers hadn't yet been able to part with their daggers. But he seems to have been nudging them in that direction, and he gave them one last pointer when he was arrested: totally unarmed himself, he refused to let the disciples use the few weapons they still possessed. There is not only a new vision of personal morality here, but a new social and political vision as well. Far from truly wanting his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords, in Luke's story Jesus takes an ironic jab at their situation as "outlaws" who have no weapons, and sends them forth to his crucifixion -- and their own -- as defenseless as he is.

David Rensberger is Professor of New Testament at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta. He has written extensively about the gospel and letters of John and on Christian spirituality. drensberger@itc.edu

<< back -- part 3 |