Whenever the question of whether Christians are ever permitted to use violence comes up, it is neither a secret nor a surprise that Jesus telling His disciples to buy swords in Luke 22:36 also usually comes up. It's not hard to understand why. Telling someone to buy a sword in the first century was like telling someone to buy a handgun today; it is a weapon with only one real use, and it is not to prepare food or chop wood.
Those who believe that Christians must never use violence ever, no matter what, understandably have rebuttals to this and explanations as to why, they believe, this passage does not justify the use of violence.
One such interpretation seems to be getting more popular. This interpretation is that Jesus told them to buy the swords so that it would look more like he was part of a violent mob, in order to fulfill Isaiah 53:12, which He cites in Luke 22:37 about Himself:
For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was counted with wrongdoers’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.
It is essentially argued that Jesus had to make His disciples become "transgressors" so that Jesus would be associated with them, in order to fulfill the prophecy.
For example, Greg Boyd takes this view:
To fulfill prophecy as well as to further force the hand of the authorities, if necessary, Jesus and his band of disciples had to appear to be criminals. More specifically, they had to appear like a typical band of sword wielding zealots, thus justifying the arrest and eventual execution of their leader.
It is not that Jesus actually intended to teach them that they should use swords for any violent purposes, or that any other Christians should buy swords (or guns today) to defend themselves or their families with. Rather, the point was simply to fulfill a prophecy by making the disciples look violent.
However, this interpretation has a number of shortcomings when we look into it deeper. A much simpler, less problematic interpretation is that Jesus cited Isaiah 53:12 in Luke 22:37 not to say that the swords were needed to make Him look like more of a criminal, but to foreshadow and confirm the fact that He was soon to be arrested and killed.
1. It basically says that Jesus told them to do something sinful and wrong in order to make a prophecy come true.
Now, one might say that since Jesus told them to buy the swords, if it was done for show and not for violence, then it is justified as following a specific, unusual command directly from God. And in the abstract, I am sympathetic to such a claim. However, in practice, this runs into problems in the narrative.
Peter's use of the sword later shows that he clearly didn't understand that Jesus citing Isaiah 53:12 was Him saying "we are doing this just for appearances." Peter used the sword for what people usually use swords for: violence.
If Jesus was trying to get them to carry their swords simply for appearances, He obviously didn't make that clear, even though He was supposedly explaining to them why they needed the swords when He cited the prophecy.
2. Logistics.
Given the timeline, it is at least questionable if there would have even been time or opportunity to go home and grab a money purse, or to both sell a cloak and buy a sword, before Jesus was arrested. I always took it as Jesus telling the disciples that once He is arrested and killed, then things will be different and they will need to provide for themselves in ways that they did not have to before.
One logistical issue that is argued to weigh in the favor of this argument but fails is the claim that two swords would not be enough to fight with, yet Jesus said "it is enough" (Verse 38). Therefore, it must have been for other reasons than actual use.
If the point was for the 12 to lead an armed insurrection or fight a war, then sure, each would probably need his own sword. But if they travelled together, then two of them having swords and knowing how to use them would be sufficient to fight off rogue bandits or other person who criminals who might threaten them.
Not to mention, if two swords for 12-13 people is insufficient for even basic self-defense, then why would two swords be enough to make it look like Jesus was leading an armed militia or other seditious enterprise?
3. The disciples were not arrested.
If the point of the disciples having swords was to make Jesus appear among "the transgressors," if the disciples were supposed to be the "transgressors" needed to fulfill this prophecy, then why were none of them arrested? We even see that Peter had a sword and used it, but only Jesus was arrested. How can we even say He was among "transgressors" when His sword-carrying disciples were not even treated like transgressors the way Jesus was?
If the disciples needed to be transgressors for the prophecy to be fulfilled, then does that mean the prophecy failed?
4. The disciples carrying swords was unnecessary to fulfill the prophecy.
Jesus was already going to be arrested and counted as among the transgressors. He would not have been arrested in the first place if He were not considered a transgressor. When they came to arrest Him, they wouldn't have known if His disciples had swords or not. They came to arrest Him regardless.
Jesus was also counted as among the transgressors by being crucified. Crucifixion was designated for the worst criminals. And Mark 15:28 (at least in some manuscripts) even appeals to Isaiah 53:12 being fulfilled by Jesus being crucified with two other criminals. Luke 23:33, for good measure, does not appeal to the prophecy specifically but does make specific mention that Jesus was crucified with two other criminals (Luke 23:33). In other words, Jesus was shown as being among transgressors within the narrative in Luke alone.
Jesus's disciples having swords was not necessary, by any stretch, to have Jesus be counted "among the transgressors."
Conclusion
It makes a lot more sense that Jesus was simply predicting His imminent arrest and death. He was saying "keep money on hand and buy a sword because I'm about to be arrested and killed," and appealed to that scripture as being about what was about to happen to Him. It was not that Jesus needed His disciples to do something that was at least unusual and at worst sinful because He needed to jerry rig a prophecy fulfillment. He cited the prophecy because that prophecy spoke to the reason why they would need to carry money and tools of self-defense.
Might there still be reasons why Jesus would have told His disciples to buy swords other than for self-defense? Perhaps. But it is was not simply to make Him look extra guilty in order to fulfill Isaiah 53:12.
Works Cited
Unless otherwise noted, all scripture is quoted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
- Greg Boyd, "Jesus Said 'Buy A Sword.' What Did He Mean?" Renew, November 12, 2019, <https://reknew.org/2019/11/jesus-said-buy-a-sword-what-did-he-mean/> (accessed April 30, 2021).
No comments:
Post a Comment