Tag Archives: sword

If you don’t have a sword…

5 Replies

OK, let’s start looking at some of the passages we brought up from the New Testament. One of the most popular passages given to support Christians bearing arms is Luke 22:36-38—

“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. 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.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”” (Luke 22:36-38)

If we apply the famous hermeneutic of “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” then the matter seems to be settled. But, alas, it doesn’t seem to be that simple.

Ben Witherington has offered a short analysis of verse 38, arguing that Jesus is rejecting the idea of sword carrying. But the passage is ambivalent enough that I think we should give it a deeper look. Linguistically, Jesus could be arguing for or against swords; what else can we find here?

In this context, what would the swords be used for? The passage Jesus quotes in verse 37 relates the instructions here to his impending arrest. Is Jesus anticipating a rise in the number of wild animals or an increase in crime following his betrayal? That seems absurd. Persecution by the Roman government? That would come eventually, but it was still decades away. No, the increased danger which Jesus was foreshadowing would come from the Jews, and it would be religiously motivated.

I’ve heard Christians argue that the teachings about loving enemies and turning the other cheek only applies to those who would persecute us. If so, this passage would seem to contradict that teaching. If Jesus is literally telling his disciples to procure weapons, it is to defend themselves against the Jews.

I would also argue that if that was Jesus’ meaning, his teachings were completely ignored. We read multiple times of the Jews persecuting Christians in the Book of Acts, and the Christians seemed to use two means of defense: prayer and flight. Fighting isn’t in there.

Patrick Mead admits to using Acts 23 in arguments against what he calls “neo-pacifists.” If Paul didn’t believe in swords being used for protection, why did he tell his nephew to inform the Romans about the plot to kill him? But that’s missing the bigger point: why didn’t Paul tell his nephew to go tell the church?

How many Christians were there in Jerusalem at that time? A conservative figure would be 10,000. Those who take Jesus literally in Luke 22 argue that Jesus approves of the ratio of one weapon for every six believers. So there should have been at least 1600 armed Christians, having purchased swords for the express purpose of protecting believers from the Jews. This was their moment! Now was the time. They knew who, they know what, they knew when. Send out those Christian special forces to do the very thing that Jesus commanded: use swords against the Jews.

So why did Paul have to tell the Romans? Surely it’s obvious. Living in a militarized society, twenty centuries after the fact, we can read Luke 22 and imagine that Jesus wanted Christians to be armed. But those living in the decades following his death understood the exact opposite. Jesus is not telling his disciples to arm themselves. He’s pointing to the impending violence which will soon lash out at the church.

That’s my theory. Feel free to punch holes in it.

The Bible & War: Battles in the wilderness

Leave a reply

As the book of Exodus begins, the Israelites are in Egypt and quickly become slaves there. As I mentioned yesterday, it’s only logical to suppose that their oppressors disarmed them.

When they left Egypt, they had weapons, enough to fight against the Amalekites when attacked in Exodus 17. Best guess is that this was part of the spoils they took from the Egyptian people. In Exodus 32, the Levites were told that each man should strap a sword to his side to kill the Israelites who were worshiping the golden calf.

On the way to the Promised Land, the Israelites had to fight several battles. In Numbers 21, the Israelites were attacked by the king of Arad, either because he thought they were invading his land or merely because he saw a chance to plunder a virtually defenseless people. In retaliation, the Israelites “utterly destroyed” all of the cities in his kingdom.

Farther down in the same chapter, the Israelites request permission to pass through the Amorite nation ruled by Sihon. Sihon responded by attacking the Israelites. God’s people won the battle and took possession of the land of Sihon. The same thing happened with Og, king of Bashan.

These were the battles that weren’t actually part of the conquest of the Promised Land but were fought en route to the Promised Land. The slave nation was now able to defend itself. We’ll look next at what the Law has to say about war, before talking about the Conquest.

The Bible & War: Living By The Sword in Genesis

1 Reply

I hadn’t planned on discussing them, but I think it might be worth taking a moment to look at some of the other characters in Genesis. When Isaac gave Esau a “consolation blessing” (after Jacob stole the real one), Isaac’s description of Esau’s hard life included “you will live by the sword.” This was not a thing to look forward to, but a description of a life without shalom, without peace.

Later we see the case of Simeon and Levi, when they avenged their sister’s honor by killing the men of Shechem. Genesis 34:25 speaks of them taking “their swords,” which seems to indicate that swords were a normal part of their equipment. Later, Jacob refers to having taken Shechem with his bow and his sword (Genesis 48:22), that being the only land that belonged to the family (Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32 refer tot hat land as having been purchased).

Jacob made it clear at the time that he was not in agreement with Simeon and Levi’s actions, and late in life he cursed them for it, saying, “their swords are weapons of violence.” The Levites would later redeem themselves (at the incident of the golden calf), but the Simeonites would pass into oblivion.

It seems likely that the Egyptians would have disarmed the Israelites during the years of slavery, so we shouldn’t expect to see any use of weaponry until after the exodus.