Isn’t saying that Jesus suggests buyings swords for self-defense an assumption?
Question:
Years ago, I discovered your helpful website, but I stopped using it. Recently, I re-discovered your website. I appreciate the tremendous amount of work you have put into the material found there. I have only gone through a small portion of it and found some great resources there. However, I disagree with many of the points used to support the notion that a Christian can serve in the military. There are several reasons I believe a Christian can't serve in the military that were not discussed in the article. However, I would like to choose one that was presented in the article. It is a widespread argument. I have copied and pasted the argument from the website here:
"Luke 22:35-38, Jesus now tells His disciples they will have need of a sword--a need that is even greater than the need for a robe. (Self-defense is approved)." ["Should a Christian serve in the military?"]
The passage about the two swords in Luke 22:35-38 is not about the civil government or the military killing someone. I think it is presented in the article because it is assumed to show the approval of Christ for His disciples to use a lethal weapon to put someone to death. I say 'assumed' because I believe it is an assumption, not a proof text.
I will try to explain why, but first, let me clarify what I believe the text teaches and what it does not teach. I am not trying to say that I know what I would do in real-life circumstances if I were put in a position to kill or be killed. However, we are far more likely to do the right thing if we have studied what that is and resolve to do the right thing to the best of our ability.
Let me also say that I recognize that there are far better Bible students than I who disagree with me on this matter. I have discussed this with several Christians individually. Just this year, a guest speaker at our church presented a lesson saying a Christian can kill in self-defense, as a law officer, or as a soldier. He included Luke 22:35-38. I have had some discussions with him and find his reasoning about the passage unconvincing. I have read numerous commentators and articles. I appreciate you for being willing to tackle subjects that are controversial, even among New Testament Christians. If we don't discuss them, we will never reach an agreement as we should.
Now, back to “assumed.” I say assumed because the text nowhere tells the Apostles to use the swords. They were told to have swords. Jesus says nothing about using those swords. You might say the passage necessarily implies that. Why would you have a sword and not intend to use it as a weapon? Well, if Jesus gave no reason for them to have swords, the case would be stronger to infer they were to use them as weapons. But, if Jesus gave a reason and that reason did not include using them as weapons, then saying they were to use them as weapons is adding to scripture. If Jesus gave only one reason, that rules out all other reasons that men may speculate about. That follows from all that I have ever heard in lessons on general and specific authority. When something is specified, that rules out everything else on the same level of specifics.
A couple of years ago, I came across an article where the author focused on the word “for,” which begins in verse 37. He said that the first word, “for,” is significant. It is the Greek word “gar.” It ties verses 36 and 37 together, and it assigns purpose.
Jesus is giving a reason in verse 37 that he wants the Apostles to have swords. Again, referring to all the lessons on general and specific authority, when Jesus or the Bible specifies one and only one reason that necessarily eliminates all other reasons in that reading, including having a sword for self-defense.
Why was Jesus telling the Apostles to have swords? Saying that the reason Jesus wanted the Apostles to have swords was for self-defense is not in the text and, therefore, is an addition to the text. Jesus gives a purpose or reason, and it is not about self-defense. It is not even about the Apostles. It is about Jesus. Saying the reason they were to have the swords was for self-defense makes this about the Apostles, not Jesus. The reason the Apostles were to have swords had to do with a prophecy about Jesus. When they came to the Garden to arrest Jesus, He said, “Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs?” That is a rhetorical question. He is saying they were treating him as if he were a robber. Of course, He wasn’t a robber, and neither were the Apostles. However, they were “reckoning” him as the leader of a gang of robbers and transgressors. In John 19:12, they apparently accused Jesus of treason. For those who chose to see Jesus as a criminal leader, a couple of swords amongst eleven men was enough for them to say, “See! He’s a criminal.” They could well have imagined that if they saw two swords, there probably were more swords. So, two swords would serve the purpose that Jesus indicated they were to serve.
Lastly, I would ask why Christ brings up the prophecy if He is not saying it is the reason for the apostles to have swords.
Thank you again for all the good work you are doing. Please let me know if my logic is flawed.
Answer:
I will address your point, but it doesn't sound like you will consider my response. You have talked about this passage with others and rejected any point that did not support your position. I doubt I will be any different.
The event in Luke 22:24-38 occurs after the Last Supper, as Jesus and his disciples are walking to Gethsemane. The full context is covered in Matthew 26:30-35; Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:31-38; and John 13:31-17:26. Each of the accounts only records highlights of the conversation, though John gives far more details than the other authors.
Notice that Luke 22:35 begins with "and." It is an indication that the topic has shifted and that some of the discussion was skipped over. Jesus reminded the disciples that they were sent out with nothing, yet they never lacked anything (Matthew 10:10-15; Mark 6:8-9). It was a reminder that God would watch over them. It is from John's account that we learn that much of what Jesus discussed was to prepare the disciples for his departure. Jesus would no longer be with them in person. They need to be prepared to take care of themselves. This is not to say that God won’t continue to watch over them, but they will be alone in dangerous and hostile regions. Saying that they should sell their clothing, if necessary, to buy a sword is a way of saying the danger is very real and cannot be ignored. They will need funds because the people around them won't always be willing to support them. They will need protection because the areas they will be traveling through won't be safe.
Jesus is not telling them to run off immediately to grab their money and buy swords. It is in the middle of the night (John 13:30). They have just finished the Passover and are walking back toward where they typically spend the nights. Thus, we know that Jesus is talking about the future in Luke 22:26.
I agree that the "for" at the start of Luke 22:37 indicates a purpose. Jesus is giving proof of why he told them to carry money and a sword. Soon, Jesus will be numbered with transgressors, as prophesied in Isaiah 53:12. If people do this to him, the apostles should not expect things to go better for them (John 15:20). Although Jesus spoke about the future, the disciples misunderstood and took his words to mean the present. They pointed out that they had two swords with them. Even Jerusalem can be dangerous at times, and they had some protection. Those swords were not just newly purchased in response to Jesus' statement in Luke 22:36. Two of the apostles were already carrying swords. The implication is that some of the disciples were typically armed. Two swords are not typically enough to defend twelve men, but they would dissuade robbers.
Rather than extend the conversation, Jesus told them it was enough for now. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Jesus had purposely brought up the topic of the need for future protection to precipitate the events that happened in the Garden when the mob came to arrest Jesus.
This passage does give credence to self-defense for two reasons:
- Jesus told the disciples to carry swords. You can argue all you want that ”he didn’t tell them to use the swords," but the fact remains that they were told to arm themselves in the future. It was for the same reason that they were told to bring money with them instead of depending on others to support them. Life was going to become difficult soon.
- Some of the disciples did carry swords with them. It was likely common-sense protection. Jesus was aware of it and never instructed them to discard the swords.
Being prepared for danger is not wrong.
Question:
Jeff,
I know you are a very busy man. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this with me. I apologize for some of the formatting. I copied and pasted some of the information from other documents I already had. Some of the formatting I was able to correct, and some I wasn't.
You seem to doubt my integrity. That is a huge step to overcome. I will only say that I have changed my mind in the past when I was shown to be wrong. But as I see it at this point the explanation I presented for the two swords account was not refuted. Rather an alternate explanation was presented and there are problems with that explanation.
"They need to be prepared to take care of themselves. This is not to say that God won’t continue to watch over them, but they will be alone in dangerous and hostile regions."
That point in and of itself seems to be trying to have it both ways. Of course, I don't know your intent. God doesn't need the apostles to have weapons for Him to protect them. The argument is made that they must have weapons to defend themselves. Someone said that God expected them to do what they could - i.e., use the sword to defend themselves. That argument assumes the very thing which needs to be shown - namely, that use of a lethal weapon with the intent to kill someone is authorized by God. That places the burden for their own lives upon themselves, and we know from several scenarios that is not the way it was. Add to that the fact that God is somehow going to be involved in ensuring they don't die. That sounds to me like the idea is that the apostles must have the sword, but God is going to control their swords and/or the swords of the bad guys, ensuring the apostles' survival. That would produce a reputation for the apostles as men who were untrained in swordplay but who could not be beaten, even against the strongest of competition. The glory would go to those men.
Jesus said this about believers: "They will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them" (Mark 16:18). Are we to believe that if enemies of the apostles forced snakes or poison on them, the apostles had no worries, but if enemies came at them with swords they would be on their own? Notice there is nothing required of the apostles (other than belief) to have that protection which God provided from snakes and poison.
"Some of the disciples did carry swords with them. It was likely common-sense protection. Jesus was aware of it and never instructed them to discard the swords."
I think this point relies on the use of the word "sword". The English word "sword" is understood to be a lethal weapon. However, Jesus was not speaking English and would not have used the word "sword". I am certainly no Greek scholar. However, we are blessed to have numerous tools available to us at no cost or at very little cost. Lexicons say the word Jesus actually used was "machaira". Thayer says it means:
1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
2b) a straight sword, for thrusting
Liddell-Scott-Jones gives as first definition "large knife or dirk".
Liddell-Scott-Jones gives as 2nd definition: as a weapon, short sword, dagger
Mounce says: a large knife, dagger; sword
The first definition (especially Thayer's) fits very well with what fishermen would have to clean and gut their fish.
Machaira would seem to be similar to the machete in more modern times. We know that a machete can be used as a tool in agriculture or as a weapon.
The point is that if there is any reason or intent other than as weapons the apostles could have two machaira then it cannot be known that they intended to use them as weapons and that Jesus approved of them keeping a weapon. For what purpose did Peter obtain a machaira? Since we aren't told why he had it, we are left with identifying the possible reasons he could have had it. It is very reasonable to expect a fisherman to have a knife. There are multiple uses of a large knife by a fisherman. In addition to cleaning and gutting fish, it could be used in repairing nets, making shavings to start a fire. Is it possible that Peter acquired a machaira with the intent to use it as a fisherman's tool? If so, Jesus would have known that intent and would not have told him to get rid of it.
Jesus had spent 3 years teaching the apostles getting them ready for what they were to do after he left earth. Yet, the idea that they needed a sword implies that God is not going to be sure they are able to complete the task they had been given to do. They would be left at the mercy of happenstance on dangerous roads. They could all be dead within a few days of starting on their journeys. After Philip had been directed to go teach the Ethiopian or Peter had been directed to go teach Cornelius or Ananias was directed to go teach Saul, would God have allowed robbers (or heart attack or lightning strike or anything else) to interfere with that? Jesus likewise directed the apostles to go teach (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 1:8). Were they going to die by the hands of evil men before they could accomplish what they had been sent to do? In Acts 23:11, the Lord told Paul he would go to Rome. That was a sure thing. Paul was not going to die by any means before he got to Rome. Did God wait until that point in time to be sure Paul would live that long before telling him he would go to Rome? Or is it more likely that God had plans for Paul to go to Rome all along?
Let's consider some ways God took care of the apostles.
Providence - We know God sometimes uses non-miraculous means to bring about His desired results. Paul’s nephew found out about a plot to kill Paul. The plot was foiled through non-miraculous means. When Paul was shipwrecked on Malta, God ensured that no lives were lost (including Paul’s) through non-miraculous means. Would God save Paul’s life providentially from shipwreck, but not from someone with a sword?
Angels - Angels appeared to Mary at the tomb of Jesus. An angel let Peter out of prison. An angel tells Philip to go preach to the Ethiopian eunuch. So, angels were certainly active on earth during this time and interacting with God's people. An angel could even do his work without being seen (Numbers 22:31). It would appear that one angel using any number of methods could have taken care of any number of robbers on the roads any of the apostles might travel. Several commentators (Barnes, Lipscomb, Benson, Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) say that Peter was about to be put to death when an angel rescued him. Acts 12:4-10. Would an angel free Peter from prison (and probably death) because God had work for Peter to do - but not save Peter from death by a sword? Would it have done Peter any good if someone had slipped a sword to him when he was in prison?
Foreseeing what was to happen in the future - Agabus told Paul what was going to happen to him. Paul chose to go anyway. God would know of any intended harm to any of the apostles based on planned routes and the intentions of evil people along the way. II Kings 6:12. He could then communicate ways for them to avoid trouble. God did sometimes communicate to them information about where they were and were not to go. Acts 16:6-10; Acts 18:9-11
Prayer - Acts 12:5 Was the prayer of the church instrumental in getting Peter set free?
We are given multiple examples of God sparing the lives of the apostles, and not one of them involved the use of a sword by an apostle. The apostles had no need of a sword to stay alive.
Answer:
"For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).
This is the same word used in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 18. We are told that the mob carried swords (Matthew 26:47), but you want to insist that such an item is only intended for peaceful purposes. Paul gives a warning that the government wields the sword, but you wish the word to mean that it is not intended to cause harm.
"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). If "sword" only referred to a fisherman's knife, then you have Jesus stating that fishermen will die by the knives they carry.
What you have consistently done is select definitions that match your intention and then claim that this is what was meant in the text. The various uses of the word "sword" indicate a weapon that can be used for killing. What you overlooked is the development of the word machomai. The word is a derivative of the word mache, which means "to fight." Its early usage included large knives used for cutting up meat, but over time, it came to denote a weapon, such as a short sword or a dagger. "With possibly one exception, each of the 29 times that machaira occurs in the New Testament it denotes a sword either literally or figuratively" [The Complete Biblical Library]. You are trying to promote your doctrine by twisting the meaning of words, and it does not work. "Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers" (II Timothy 2:14).
Your second argument essentially states that since God promised to protect the apostles, they were expected not to defend themselves. David prayed, "My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence" (II Samuel 22:3). Yet, David carried a sword and fought many battles. Both the use of a sword and being protected by God can be true, but you deny this obvious truth.
It remains that you have not proven that Jesus did not mean self-defense when he told them to carry swords and money. I showed that the meaning is not only possible but is the straightforward way to understand what Jesus said. You deny this and came up with an obscure way to arrive at a different meaning. This doesn't prove your point. Most of your arguments are "This can't be" because it doesn't align with your view of non-violence. But a lack of acceptance doesn't create firm proof of the truth.
