guns

Did Jesus Instruct Us to Arm Ourselves?

Over the past few posts, I’ve been dealing with the passages that are frequently used to argue how Jesus condoned violence. One of these takes place just after the last supper and just before Jesus and his disciples were going to travel to the Mount of Olives to pray. To prepare his disciples, Jesus tells them; “if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Lk 22:36). According to some scholars, this instruction indicates that Jesus did not uniformly rule out his disciples resorting to violence in response to aggression. When read in context, I think it becomes clear that this instruction implies nothing of the sort.

First, this interpretation of Jesus’ instruction contradicts Jesus’ unqualified teachings about loving and serving enemies and about refraining from violence (e.g. Lk 6:27-36). On the assumption that Jesus would not blatantly contradict himself, we should start with the assumption that Jesus did not intend his disciples to use the swords he instructed them to buy.

Second, when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus, we must note how Jesus responded when his disciples asked him, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” (Lk 22:49) – the very swords Jesus had just instructed them to purchase. Before Jesus had a chance to answer, one of his disciples “struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear” (v. 50). Jesus then said, “No more of this!” (v. 51), clearly indicating that he never intended for his disciples to rely on the swords they brought. This becomes even clearer in Matthew’s Gospel when Jesus rebukes this disciple by reminding him of the cyclical nature of violence. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mt 26:52). And having rebuked this disciples’ typical worldly response to aggression, Jesus then modeled the way he would have disciples respond to aggression by healing this guard’s ear (Lk 22:51). Disciples are to serve, bless and pray for enemies, not afflict them.

The reason for Jesus’ instruction to buy swords in Luke becomes clear if we simply attend to the verse that follows it, for Jesus explains his instruction by quoting Isa 53:12: “And he was numbered with the transgressors.” Jesus then adds: “and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (v. 37). It is apparent that the purpose for having some of his disciples carry swords was not so they could defend him, but simply to fulfill this prophecy, thereby justifying his opponents arrest of him as a political revolutionary. This also explains why Jesus said “[t]hat’s enough” after his disciples told him they had two swords among them prior to heading to the Mount of Olives (Lk 22:38). Had Jesus expected them to actually fight the Temple guard, a mere two swords would not have sufficed. But two were sufficient to make Jesus appear as, and ultimately to be crucified as, a political transgressor.

Finally, it is significant that when Jesus later appeared before Pilate and was asked if he was the King of the Jews, Jesus responded that his kingdom was not of this world, and he pointed to the fact that his followers were not fighting as proof of this fact (Jn. 18:36). Were Jesus the king of any earthly kingdom, his followers would have certainly taken up arms to defend him. This is how all earthly kingdoms operate. The fact that Jesus’ followers were not fighting thus constitutes the definitive proof that the kingdom Jesus ushered in was of a very different sort. And this simply confirms the point that Jesus never intended his disciples to use the swords he instructed them to purchase.

Photo credit: jonmallard via VisualHunt.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Related Reading

The Cruciform Trinity

As paradoxical as it sounds, if God is supremely revealed when he stoops to the infinite extremity of becoming his own antithesis on the cross, then we must conclude that stooping to this extremity out of love must, in some sense, be intrinsic to who God eternally is. And rendering this coherent necessitates that we…

Topics:

A Revelation of Beauty Through Ugliness

In my recent post, Getting Honest About the Dark Side of the Bible, I enlisted no less an authority than John Calvin to support my claim that we need to be forthright in acknowledging that some of the portraits of God in the OT are, as he said, “savage” and “barbaric.”  What else can we…

The REAL Problem with Divine Violence in the OT

As I mentioned in my previous blog, while I will continue to offer video-blogs responding to questions that come in, I’m also planning on sprinkling in reflections based on my forthcoming book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God, over the next couple months. Today, I just want to state what I consider to be the real…

God Made Visible

During Advent, we celebrate and bring to the forefront of our imagination the God who was made visible. The Gospel of John sums up the advent of God with one sentence: “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full…

Contemplating Food Choices

As many of you know, Shelley and I have been vegetarians for the last eight years or so. This is a personal conviction, not a doctrine, but there are compelling reasons for adopting this lifestyle. The main conviction that led me to quit eating meat was that I felt I should never kill anything out of convenience…

Is the New Testament Ambiguous About Non-Violence?

One could argue, with some legitimacy, that the portrait of God in the NT is not unambiguously non-violent, the revelation of God on Calvary notwithstanding. It can’t be denied that there are violent-appearing images of God in certain teachings of Jesus and certain NT authors, especially when it comes to their eschatological teachings. In addition,…