Swords and prophecies
Luke 22:35-38 – And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
What is Jesus talking about in context?
Read Luke 22:31-38
Remark: Jesus tells his disciples that a significant change is about to take place in both his life and theirs. For the previous three and a half years, the disciples had been close to Jesus. Their needs were either directly supplied by him or provided through God’s providence in connection with his mission as the Messiah (they lacked nothing on their mission trips; verse 35).
But now a darker period was beginning — a time of betrayal, opposition, and the proverbial “sword” (i.e. conflict, danger, and separation). In this context, Jesus is not speaking about establishing a general principle that Christians must arm themselves. If that were the case, the mere presence of two swords would clearly not be sufficient, nor would they meaningfully change the situation they were about to face.
What was Jesus’ stance on self-defense and violence?
John 18:36 – Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Remark: When the disciples said that they had two swords, Jesus responded, “It is enough.” Some interpret this to mean that two swords were sufficient. However, in light of Jesus’ clear rejection of violence (John 18:36), this interpretation seems unlikely.
If he meant that two swords would be enough for their protection, the statement raises serious difficulties. First, two swords would obviously not suffice against an armed group sent to arrest him. Second, Jesus explicitly stated that his kingdom does not advance through force, and that his servants would not fight to prevent his arrest. This suggests that he did not intend his followers to defend him — or themselves — by violence.
Therefore, another explanation is more consistent with the context. The phrase “It is enough” can reasonably be understood as a way of ending the discussion — in the sense of, “Enough of this,” or “You have misunderstood what I meant.”
What was the purpose of the two swords?
Luke 22:37 – For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors {among the lawless/criminals}: for the things concerning me have an end.
Isaiah 53:12 – Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors {with the rebels}; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Remark: Jesus’ nonviolent stance would suggest that the two swords the disciples possessed had no proper place among them. Yet he tolerated the presence of these weapons, which appears at first to be paradoxical.
However, Jesus explicitly connects the situation to the fulfillment of prophecy — specifically that he would be “reckoned among the transgressors.” If he was to be treated and condemned as a criminal or rebel, circumstances would need to support such an accusation. The presence of weapons among his followers would make it easier for the authorities to portray him as a dangerous insurgent and thus “number him with the transgressors,” in fulfillment of Isaiah 53.
How were the swords used?
Luke 22:49-52 – When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
Remark: The swords were used in a way that aligns with the prophecy. However, their use was not in accordance with Jesus’ teaching in John 18:36. The disciples asked whether they should “smite with the sword,” yet one of them acted before receiving a clear answer. Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest (John 18:10-11).
Significantly, Jesus did not endorse this act. He immediately stopped the violence, commanded restraint, and healed the injured man. In doing so, he demonstrated that force was not his method or mission. Nevertheless, the incident contributed to the perception that he and his followers were acting like criminals, and thus he was “counted with the transgressors” (Luke 22:52).
This episode reinforces the conclusion that the swords were not intended for self-defense, but were part of the unfolding events that led to the fulfillment of prophecy.
The right use of the sword
What is a Christian’s sword?
Hebrews 4:12 – For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Ephesians 6:17 – And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God …
Should Christians be preparing to take part in armed conflict or self-defense?
Matthew 5:39, 44 – But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. / But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Ephesians 6:12 – For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Remark: No. The overwhelming majority of wars and armed conflicts are driven by political, economic, or other human motives rather than by genuine moral necessity. Historically and presently, there are very few conflicts that would require direct Christian involvement.
Jesus’ teaching calls believers to resist retaliation, to love their enemies, and to respond to hostility with grace. Furthermore, Scripture emphasizes that our true struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces. Therefore, Christians should not prepare themselves for physical combat, but for spiritual warfare — equipping themselves with love, faithfulness, good works, clear reasoning, and sound judgment rather than physical weapons.
Are there still cases when self-defense is viable?
Romans 13:4 – For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Remark: Read the whole passage in Romans 13:1-4. In this context, the “sword” is primarily entrusted to governing authorities, not to private individuals. Therefore, any personal use of force can only be considered in situations where no legitimate authority is present to restrain evil. Even then, it must remain a last resort.
While the use of force in the Old Testament — even by God’s people — was at times a historical reality, the New Testament does not explicitly command believers to take up arms, nor does it clearly legislate personal violence as a norm. In Luke 3:14, John the Baptist instructs soldiers to carry out their duties justly, rather than telling them to abandon their profession, which suggests that the existence of force within civil structures is acknowledged.
Nevertheless, it should be absolutely clear that Christians are called to a life characterized by nonviolence and love toward enemies. The use of force is not the norm for believers and can only be contemplated in extremely rare and exceptional circumstances — particularly where innocent life is in immediate danger and no other protection is available. Even then, it is less about personal self-defense and more about the urgent protection of others.
Are there any examples of such viable use of force?
Read Genesis 14.
Remark: Abraham (called Abram at that time) did not maintain a standing army and was not generally prepared for war. The situation described in Genesis 14 was extraordinary and required intervention to rescue innocent people who had been taken captive. This was not a pattern of life, but a response to an exceptional crisis.
Such cases remain rare exceptions. As Christians, we are not called to live in preparation for violence. If we constantly prepare ourselves to use force, we may become more inclined to rely on it and thereby risk acting contrary to God’s will. Trust in God and commitment to spiritual means must remain primary. In truly extreme situations, God is able to provide what is necessary — and ideally, that provision will not require violence.
Exodus 22:2-3 – If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Remark: This passage shows that, under certain circumstances, lethal force in immediate nighttime defense against a violent intruder was not treated as murder. The distinction suggests an urgent, unavoidable threat rather than deliberate retaliation.
See also Esther 8-9, where the Jews were permitted to use force in self-defense against those who sought to destroy them.
Conclusion
Luke 22:36 cannot be used as a general command for Christians to arm themselves. In its context, the passage serves a specific purpose connected to the fulfillment of prophecy rather than establishing a lasting principle of armed readiness. The broader teaching of Jesus and the New Testament consistently points toward nonviolence, love of enemies, and spiritual warfare instead of reliance on physical force.
While Scripture does not absolutely forbid defensive force in extreme and exceptional circumstances, it is never presented as something Christians are called to prepare for, cultivate, or depend upon. The believer’s primary weapon remains spiritual, not physical.
Leave a Reply