Consider this passage in Luke’s gospel for
a moment:
“And he said to them, ‘When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals,
did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘Nothing.’ 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.’ ”
Two swords. Hmm. A call for a more militant
Christendom, maybe?
Buy a Sword
I think that unlikely.
In those days there was nothing unusual about
carrying a sword in Judea even if you were not a Roman citizen. There do not
appear to have been “sword-free zones” in Jewish universities and concealed
carry permits were not required. In the upper room, when the Lord made his remark about buying a
sword, twelve disciples promptly produced two, suggesting
that walking the streets of Jerusalem well equipped for self-defense was far
from a rare occurrence.
That doesn’t mean all the disciples
immediately understood why the Lord would tell them to go buy one.
Three Stabs in the Dark
William MacDonald lists a few possible
explanations that have been given for the Lord’s words, most of which I find unconvincing. Like this one:
“Some suggest that He was referring to the sword of the Spirit …”
Uh, no. If the sword is not to be taken
literally, then, as MacDonald points out, moneybag, knapsack and cloak must
be allegorized as well.
Or this one:
“Williams says that the sword means the protection of an ordered government, pointing out that in Romans 13:4, it refers to the power of the magistrate.”
This explanation runs into the same
difficulty: allegorize one, allegorize them all. Further, how were the
disciples supposed to appeal to the protection of an ordered government? What might
be the “cloak” they could sell to buy that protection? And why would the Lord
say of the two literal weapons they produced, “It is enough” rather than simply
pointing out that they had misunderstood him entirely?
Or this one:
“Some think that the sword was for defense against wild animals only.”
If this is the case, a few swords might
have come in awfully useful when wandering all throughout Galilee and Judea
preaching the coming of the kingdom. But the Lord had never mentioned such a
thing then. Why suddenly bring it up now?
I think there may be a more logical explanation
to be found in the passage itself.
Let Every Person Be Subject
First, these swords were not instruments of
revolution. They were never intended to be used against secular or religious
authorities. Paul’s instructions to the Romans make it impossible to construe the Lord’s words as a call to arms. This was
true even when the authorities misbehaved themselves and failed to function as God intended, a circumstance which occurred shortly thereafter.
More importantly, the swords were
definitely not intended to prevent the Lord Jesus from being “numbered with the
transgressors”. Later in the same chapter the Lord rebukes his own disciples
for attempting to prevent him from being taken by those who had come out “as against a robber”.
Nor were the swords intended for general
use in the service of God now that Jesus was going to the Father. Going about
armed was not the “new normal” for discipleship, a fact which is evident from
the Lord’s statement that the one who had no sword should “sell his cloak and
buy one”. A cloak was a necessary garment; something one might make use of every
day. But unless you made your living as a soldier, a sword was only needed in times of peril. The
cloak is normal; the sword exceptional. Selling one to obtain the other is certainly
something one might feel compelled to do in a crisis, but come cold weather
or peaceful times, most everyone would prefer the cloak.
Part of a Package
Moreover, the sword does not stand alone.
It is part of a package that also included moneybag and knapsack. Neither of
the latter two had been necessary when the Lord sent out the twelve in Luke 9, nor were they necessary when he sent out the seventy-two in Luke 10. He had turned his followers out into the countryside without provision,
reserves, or even the next meal in full confidence that God would provide for those
who he had called into his service. And God did.
So Jesus had already taught his disciples,
both verbally and through practical experience, to expect that provision and
protection are the normal state of affairs while in the service of God.
This would continue to be the case when he
charged them with taking the good news of salvation to all creation. Anticipating
his own resurrection, he could say in that same upper room, “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” Many Christians continue to claim this promise today, and when
truly asking “in his name” find it repeatedly fulfilled.
Numbered with the Transgressors
But we need not look too far afield for
answers. Jesus tells his disciples exactly why it is they need swords: “For I
tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered
with the transgressors.’ ” The word “for” [Greek: gar] links this statement to the command to buy a sword, implying a cause-and-effect
relationship between the Lord’s own imminent ‘numbering with the transgressors’
and the disciples’ imminent need for swords, knapsacks and moneybags.
The Great Shepherd could say to his Father about
his sheep, “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have
given me. I have guarded them.” This was about to change, at least for a short time.
The eleven most visible earthly representatives
of the kingdom of heaven were about to find themselves huddled behind closed
doors, their Master dead and buried, their hopes dashed and their heads whirring
with confusion and fear — while the Lord was being “numbered with the
transgressors” and while the scripture was being fulfilled in him. In such a
situation, a few bucks, a change of clothes and the reassuring presence of a weapon
were the gracious accommodation of a Shepherd concerned for the well-being of
his sheep while he himself was absent from the fold.
But being left to their own devices was a
blip, not an ongoing state of affairs. The moneybags, knapsacks and swords were
for a brief interval only.
How They Took It
This is surely how the disciples understood
the Lord’s words ... eventually. Once they had recovered from their initial fear, his
followers saw no need of swords; you will search the book of Acts for a
sword-wielding apostle in vain, despite the fact that they and their
fellow-workers were regularly imprisoned and mistreated at the command of
authorities both religious and secular.
Thus it seems to me highly improbable that the
Lord was advocating for some sort of general Christian militancy. Much more
likely he was simply making provision for his loved ones in a moment
of need.
___________________________
Photo credit: Max Pixel.
No comments :
Post a Comment