Luke22:38

Translation

Then they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”

And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Paraphrase

Then some of them said, “Look, Lord, two of us have a weapon so they can do defend the rest of us.”

His response to them was, “OK, whatever.”

Footnotes

1

Jesus’ answer was not a clear condemnation of their statement, but neither did it condone their statement. To me it shows that the disciples did not understand or fully espouse the teachings of Jesus about depending on God rather than on material preparedness, and His teaching about nonviolence. Jesus had made His point and was not inclined to argue with them. Notice the difference in what was said just moments ago – sell you cloak if you must, but by all means buy a sword! That is a very strong statement, while here his response is basically “whatever.”

WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF JESUS’ STATEMENT ABOUT BUYING A SWORD?

I am convinced that Jesus did not mean for them to actually sell their cloaks and buy a sword. Here are the reasons why I say that.

1) this contradicts the rest of Jesus’ teaching about violence

2) it contradicts what Jesus told Peter a while later as recorded in Mt 26:52. He told him to put away his sword, for “those who take up the sword will die by the sword.”

3) A man would never sell his cloak. If he had no cloak, he could not leave his house.

4) Jesus used the quote from Isaiah 53 as a rebuke to the disciples because they were thinking like the rebellious people of the world.

5) His response to them having two swords among them was not equal to the strength of the statement about the need to go and buy a sword.

6) After Pentecost, none of the Apostles used violent means to defend themselves. All of them ended up understanding that the way Jesus taught them to act was better than the way human nature teaches us and better than what Peter attempted to do in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Here is what I think was really going on: Jesus had asked them a question which reminded them of His teaching on issues related to preparedness, and it also reminded them of God’s faithfulness. That was His perspective which He placed on one side of the imaginary table. Then He was placing on the other side of that table an alternate idea for them to consider, which happened to be the idea that most them already espoused. Jesus knew their tendencies. He knew they still wanted a fight with Rome. He knew some of them would still rely on the sword if the right situation arose. They had to choose which way they would live; He would not force them to do it His way.

Shortly after this, the temple guards and Roman soldiers (some say 300 of them) came to arrest Jesus and Peter tried to use violence to protect Jesus. He was told, “Put your sword in its place for those who take up the sword will die by the sword.” The unspoken lesson was, “I don’t want you to live that way, and you don’t want that either.”

With the exception of Ellicott, most commentators see here an indication that times are coming that will be difficult and they need to be prepared with money, provisions, and self-defense. I disagree. The commentators then go on to make clear that the use of the sword is not intended for the killing of others, it is only in self-defense or to discourage attacks. But why should we take the comment about the purse to be literal and the one about the sword to be figurative or only partially literal? That is an inconsistency in interpretation.

Some say it is a reference to the sword of the Spirit, i.e. the word of God, but context does not support such an interpretation.

The quote from Isaiah 53 is usually applied to those who crucified Him or the wicked people of the world, and those applications are correct. However, here Jesus also used it to describe His disciples because they had not gotten rid of all their worldly thinking. Some see this quote from Isaiah as support for the idea that times will get tough and the followers of Jesus must do whatever is necessary to survive. While it is true that a follower of Jesus can expect times to get tough, the part about doing whatever you need to do to survive runs contrary to the rest of the New Testament. The entire vision we call Revelation is about suffering persecution like Jesus did. The example and writings of Paul and Peter show the same emphasis on non-violent suffering. One can make this passage about providing for yourself and defending yourself, but only if you ignore the rest of the New Testament.

In summary: Jesus said two opposing things because he was laying two opposing options on the imaginary table before them. One was the Jesus way, such as they had experienced when He sent them out two by two, and the other was the human way, expressed with strong words about getting a weapon at all costs. Jesus was using their own thoughts, words and actions as a way to show that they needed a major change in their lives. They would soon be forced to choose how they would respond to strong opposition. That night Peter chose the human way and Jesus gave him a mild rebuke for doing so; after Pentecost Peter consistently chose the Jesus way and those choices brought glory to God.

In these verses we see one of the ways that Jesus prepared His disciples for the persecution they would soon face. In persecution, the principles of non-violence should always be followed.

However, applying these principles to other situations in our lives can become a bit challenging. Several questions are worth considering. Here I will simply pose those questions without trying to answer them.

If someone breaks into my home, should I apply the nonviolence principle or fulfill the responsibility to defend my family?

If I observe a case of obvious abused, should I do something about it, or not get involved?

When am I in the wrong if I do nothing?