Luke 22:36, “…And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one…” This verse has long been asserted to be allegorical. Theologians have said that this verse tells us to be prepared to fight the spiritual enemy in spiritual places. That it doesn’t mean physical fighting. They say that we must be ready to fight temptations. Here is a quote from Calvin’s Commentary for verse 36,
But now let him who hath a purse take it. In metaphorical language he threatens that they will soon meet with great troubles and fierce attacks; just as when a general, intending to lead the soldiers into the field of battle, calls them to arms, and orders them to lay aside every other care, and think of nothing else than fighting, not even to take any thought about procuring food. For he shows them–as is usually done in cases of extreme danger–that every thing must be sold, even to the scrip and the purse, in order to supply them with arms. And yet he does not call them to an outward conflict, but only, under the comparison of fighting, he warns them of the severe struggles of temptations which they must undergo, and of the fierce attacks which they must sustain in spiritual contests. That they might more willingly throw themselves on the providence of God, he first reminded them, as I have said, that God took care to supply them with what was necessary, even when they carried with them no supplies of food and raiment. Having experienced so large and seasonable supplies from God, they ought not, for the future, to entertain any doubt that he would provide for every one of their necessities.
Here is a quote from the Geneva Study Bible notes, “{m} 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.
(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour. And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword.”
Here is John Wesley’s notes on the verse, “22:36 But now – You will be quite in another situation. You will want every thing. He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one – It is plain, this is not to be taken literally. It only means, This will be a time of extreme danger.”
They site Luke 22:50-51 as support for this assertion. Luke 22:50-51, “…And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him…”
I tend to agree with John Gill’s understanding of the verse. Here is a quote from his exposition of the Bible,
“Then said he unto them,…. That is, Jesus said unto them, as the Persic version expresses it:
but now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; signifying hereby, that from this time forward, immediately after his departure from them, after his death, resurrection, and ascension, when they should be sent into all the world to preach the Gospel, it would be otherwise with them than before; that they should be reduced to great penury and distress, should neither have food, nor money to buy any with; and that they should suffer hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and have no certain dwellingplace, as was their case; see 1 Corinthians 4:11 and that they would not be received, and entertained in the manner they had been; and therefore it would be advisable, if they had any provisions, to take them with them in their scrips; or if they had any money, to carry it with them in their purses; for glad would they be to provide themselves with necessaries at any rate:
and he that hath no sword; the word “sword” is not in this clause, but in the next; it is only in the original, “he that hath not”; which, at first sight; looks as if the sense was, he that hath not a purse, or a scrip, to sell, and buy a sword with, let him sell his garment, and buy one: but, as De Dieu observes, the phrase, “he that hath not”, is the same with “he that has nothing”; who is a poor man, and has no money to buy a sword with, let him part with his garment, which rich men, who had money, had no need to do; though the Syriac, Persic, and Arabic versions put the word sword, in both clauses;
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy a sword; that is, if he could get one no other way. Christ here uses the common dialect of the nation, as Dr. Lightfoot observes. So on the feast of dedication of the temple,
“if a man had not any thing to eat, but what he had by alms, he must beg, or , “sell his garment”, and take oil, and lamps, and light them (u).”
These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself. In “seven” ancient copies of Beza’s, it is read in the future tense, “he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy”.”
(u) Maimon. Hilch. Megilla Uchanucha, c. 4. sect. 12.
There clarification we need is clear when we add context. The first assertion stops at the rebuke by Christ when one of the disciples used a sword to attack the slave of the high priest. This is to support the notion of physical pacifism today. The fact that Christ rebuked him for using force against an aggressor is misunderstood to mean that the use of force against an aggressor is wrong in all circumstances. We all agree that our true enemies are of the spiritual world and they are not of flesh and blood, but we must acknowledge that these enemies use flesh and blood as fodder for their war against God and His servants.
We must also look at all of the text. If we read verses 52-52, “…Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? “While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”…” We see that Jesus is explaining to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders that He has never given them cause to come with weapons against Him. He wasn’t saying that there is never a time to use force. He was saying that that moment wasn’t the time for it.
We can also see from the entirety of the New Testament that Christ came to fulfill a purpose that was from the Father. For the time that He was here and through the time of His ministry He would not be stopped until that time which was decreed. When His kingdom was established and He would ascend then the disciples would be open for persecution much as He was.
They would be hated for His namesake. There would be all sorts of dangers and hardships. They were to spread the gospel and establish the Church in opposition to the world, Contra Mundum. Provisions would be required. While Christ was with them, they didn’t need anything and were sent out with the provision of God to show them that He would care for them. They were now being sent out. They would be providing for others out of God’s provision for them, both spiritually and materially. When we see someone being oppressed unjustly, assaulted or abused, we have an obligation out of love to assist them. Certainly while the disciples were waging spiritual warfare they at times must do physical battle with the enemy’s forces as well.
I’m not suggesting that they were like the crusaders. They weren’t running around fighting great battles. I think it is reasonable to assume they were to defend themselves and others from thieves, murderers, and other such offenders. We know that if a man lives by the sword he shall die by the sword, but that isn’t what they are being told to do. They aren’t being told to go out as murderous killers or warriors like the Muslims. They are simply being warned that things are going to get bad once Jesus is no longer bodily with them. They are being told to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. I personally have no problem owning firearms and protecting myself and others when prudent. I won’t tell you to violate your conscience either.
I believe it is much more loving to live in an ordered society with laws, but when the police aren’t around to help you must stand up and deal with evil men. Love for people will move us to defend them from the enemy’s minions. Love for Christ will make us prudent in our use of force. If we don’t love Christ, our use of force will surely turn into cruel tyranny. This is what we see going on all around the world today.
We must first and foremost be Christians. We must be people who have repented of sin and put our faith in the Lord Jesus for our salvation. We must seek His kingdom first and make Him preeminent in our minds, and lives. When His will is Lord over ours we won’t take a life without great cause and deliberation.
Snyder's Soapbox 