The Testimony of Antithesis Regarding the Sword (Matthew 26.52 and Luke 22.36-38)

Christ's warning is clear. All who take up the sword will perish by it and the context of this statement is in rebuke to Peter who had just cut off the ear of Malchus, servant to the high priest.

From the Sermon on the Mount to Gethsemane, Christ both teaches and demonstrates the principle of nonresistance. The sword and all vengeance are rejected. We learn later though Paul that the sword of the present is wed to worldly power. It is a form of vengeance, a thing we Christians are to reject. It is an act of faith to suffer for obedience to God and to trust in His Judgment that He will set things right at the proper time. It is therefore an act of autonomy to take up the sword and to demand vengeance or justice on one's own time and for one's own purposes.

It also brings into question one's understanding of grace, for indeed we too would yet be children of wrath were it not for the grace of God. And thus we must patiently and graciously wait for the true sword that comes in justice and righteousness and yet we also would wish that grace would be extended to those that have harmed us just as it was extended to us – who harmed others. It's no easy thing and our flesh chafes against this teaching. (Matthew 18.21-35, Ephesians 4.32)

Some evade the principle of nonresistance by arguing that Christ is not to be emulated. His mission (as it were) was unique to His person. Indeed it's true that we do not suffer to atone for the sins of the world, to be a substitutionary sacrifice in the role of the Second Adam. There are certainly aspects to Christ's ministry that we simply cannot replicate nor is there need as such.

And yet, as 1 Peter 2.21 makes clear, we are to pattern our lives and our suffering after Christ. Specifically we are called to suffer when we do well, in other words to suffer for the wrong reasons. Men will persecute and hate us not for any evil we have done but because we stand with Christ. So then how much more are we called to endure personal insults and even injury? Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.7 rebukes the Corinthians for seeking retribution. They should have been willing to suffer the wrong.

Ah, someone will say, that's in relation to other Christians. When a worldling takes what is mine, then I am right to seek vengeance either myself or to call on the state to give me justice and act as an agent of vengeance.

That might be plausible but for the testimony of Hebrews 10.34 wherein the author in exhorting his audience, praises them for taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods. And of course Matthew 5.39-40 is abundantly clear though many will not hear it. It seems impossible to them that we are to 'resist not evil', turn the other cheek, and allow our possessions to be spoiled.

As I've said repeatedly the teachings of Christ suffer constant criticism from within the Church, as strange as that might seem. I've heard many a sermon and read many an article that spends more time trying to dismantle his teachings than elaborate upon them and call the hearers to obedience. The epistles teach the very same things and yet because the questions are framed and contextualised in a different way, men find a way to spin and twist the words and escape their meaning. But in the gospels, the teaching (at least on this point) is often plain, even stark and yet many Christian teachers have a real problem with the doctrine and its implications. It's certainly something to ponder and meditate on.

Though this message is extremely unpopular and met with hostility by a world-compromised Church that has given itself over to Mammon and myths about its history and its history in relation to nations born of blood, this is nevertheless the teaching of the New Testament. There's a whole culture at work within the Church that reeks of worldliness and a form of apostasy. And to be blunt, they hate this teaching.

The sword is the sign of the perishing world, the sign of those who seek vengeance. The sword can legitimately be wielded by the fallen temporal state and though it's profane and not part of God's Kingdom, it nevertheless serves a providential purpose in a depraved and sin cursed world– and yet does such legitimacy permit the Christian to take up the sword? May the Christian put on a uniform and badge, in other words take up the banner of the state and under that aegis wield the sword and even kill?

Only by arguing that Christian ethics are not universally applicable (in all places and at all times) to the Christian Church, could this possibly be so. The Christian in this scenario on Monday morning (as it were) must set aside his Christian identity and ethics to serve another master, the state. The doctrine and ethics of Romans 12 would only apply on Sunday. For the rest of the week he's a servant to the magistrate. That seems highly problematic.

The magistrate is a 'minister' of sorts, just as Assyria, Babylon and in Romans 13, Rome itself is also described as a minister or servant. And of course this is the Rome of Nero. Paul has little interest in changing the political order or challenging it. But nowhere was or is there a suggestion that the Christian should seek out service in those entities and be willing to kill for them. Again, Paul is contrasting Christian ethics in Romans 12 with the purpose of the state in Romans 13.

Many Christians have erred in thinking that Paul is outlining some kind of paradigm for limited government. His statements have nothing to do with delineating government or describing its officially granted powers or limitations. He's explaining to Christians how the entity serves a purpose, is ordained by God and is to be obeyed, even while it has nothing to do with us and we are not part of it or what it does. The chapter division between 12 and 13 is unfortunate in that it divides the argument and has led people to treat the connecting contrast as separate and disjointed passages.

Even when the state turns Bestial, there is still is no indication that we're to resist. We can disobey, flee and glorify God through suffering and even becoming martyrs but never are we to take up the sword. The flesh hates this. The Church that has embraced power or middle class values hates this. The Church in service to mammon hates this and cannot endure the thought of losing its earthly treasures. The truth is the vast majority of the churches and certainly its leaders hate this doctrine and thus hate the Kingdom and its King and have little interest in following the lamb withersoever he goeth.

On an individual level the wielders of the sword of vengeance are cut from the cloth of Cain, the one associated with vengeance and of course Lamech, his progeny who was willing to kill for minor offense, to exact vengeance beyond the injury given to him. This ethos reigns in our society. It's in the movies, it comes from the political lectern, it's on t-shirts and bumper stickers and sadly it's very prevalent within the Church. As I park the car on Sunday morning and take in the bumper stickers of my fellow congregational members, sometimes it makes me sick.

The sword is a sign of this world that is perishing. Thus all who take it up will perish. Our rejection of the sword and consequent embrace of the cross is a sign of condemnation to the world and a sign of hope – the suggestion of a Kingdom of Peace and of holiness. The fact that we reject what the world has to offer including its very mindset is a sign to the world that they are doomed and we are not of them.

This basic symbol of antithesis, the division between us and them, the Church and the world is important and the early Church understood this. But an ethical shift took place after Constantine. The Church embraced and blessed the sword as well as the coin and the throne. The Church's identity was compromised and the world flooded in and all but consumed it. Throughout Church History a remnant, different people at different times and places have retained this basic truth and the ethics which flow from it. And it is certainly a remnant today, a vestige of testimony to the truth and power of the gospel.

Before we conclude we must address Luke 22.36-38, a passage many deem a problem for this view. Is it? Jesus tells his disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword and then when they say they have two swords among them, He says 'it is enough'.

Is this an endorsement of the sword? No, it's not.

Over the years there have been different ways of interpreting Christ's words. Some believe his 'is it enough', signifies exasperation on his part, that the disciples had missed the point of his words and as the time was short, he's essentially telling them to drop it for now. This reading would see his words about selling and buying a sword as yet another instance of figurative language or hyperbole and as such he was not literally telling them to procure or produce swords but rather was warning and exhorting them about the critical nature of the trials they would face, a spiritual battle that would mark the events surrounding the crucifixion and the Last Days, the age of the Church and the mission to establish it which was appointed unto them.

This is plausible even likely reading but it's not the only possibility.

Some have suggested that Jesus was laying out a principle for limited or restrained self-defence. Two swords wouldn't be able to storm a fortress or stop an army but it might be a deterrent, enough to stave off a low-level threat. Sadly this has become a popular reading and yet it has no standing and we can safely say, this is not what Jesus meant at all. His later statement in Matthew 26 ratifies this rejection. He was not (in contradiction to everything else he had taught), telling them to take up the sword and fight to defend themselves. This argument must be rejected with prejudice. It is the result of Biblical ignorance and gross eisegesis.

The other solution is found in the text itself and is in reference to the Isaiah 53 quotation found in v.37 referencing his being numbered with the transgressors. Some would draw a connection between his call for them to bring some swords and the nature of his arrest or indictment. And yet you would think there would be some talk in reference to the 'swords' being found at his trial. The lack of evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't discussed. I don't believe the Gospels give us an exhaustive account.

Was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 connected to the possession of swords, or to put it differently, were the swords a necessary item for Him to be reckoned among the transgressors? Some believe this and I can't completely discount it. But it seems that in Luke He's speaking in general terms about the end of his ministry and the fact that they need to prepare for trials and seasons of hardship and testing. I don't necessarily see the direct connection between swords and being numbered with the transgressors. In fact it seems even more troublesome when one considers that he was (while before Pilate) stressing the fact that he wasn't an insurrectionist, that he was not claiming temporal kingship or seeking to supplant Caesar. His innocence was paramount to his testimony and I don't think Pilate would have been as dubious regarding his conviction if there was even a hint of violence, civil disturbance or insurrection at work in his movement or among his disciples.

I believe v.36 is more or less figurative or hyperbolic, a call to hardship and struggle, not a literal imperative to accumulate money and get one's self a sword. But regardless of which understanding of v.36 is correct I can safely say that Christ is not endorsing the sword or the use of the sword.