Luke 22: 35-38[35] Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse,
bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
[36] He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it,
and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and
buy one. [37] It is written: 'And he was numbered with the
transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.
Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
[38] The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.”
INTRODUCTION:
The above is a more-or-less standard translation of the noted verse.
From reading the many different interpretations of these three verses
I can only conclude that the various commentators are so divergent as
to lead me to doubt that they have a handle on this tidbit of the
Gospels. The following comments provide a base for a very different
view of these words.
Could it be that something happened after the
Christ's earlier sending-out of disciples on the lawless roads of
that land? Could it be that his concern for His People (As we are) as
moved Him to have them take such measures as were needed to protect
their bands?
ON
SWORDS IN JESUS' TIME: The
sword of c.33AD in the Roman world were the ultimate personal weapon.
There were the AK-47s/AR-15s of that time. As all weapons of that era
and most of today's they could be used for offense or defense.
Swords required much more metal than axes, daggers,
spear points and other weapons. They also required very much more
skill, effort and time in their manufacture which made them more
uncommon in private hands than not and more costly than otherwise.
The writers of that era (Including those of the
Gospels) were very aware of Roman and other weapons and, unlike some
of the historically uninformed commentators on the verses noted
above, not prone to confuse “swords” with “daggers”.
JESUS'
NATIVE LANGUAGE: There is
little doubt that the native language of Jesus was a form of Aramaic.
He appears to have known enough Hebrew for the purposes of the
Synagogue and may have known some Greek, the lingua-franca
of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire as demonstrated by his
interactions with Pontus Pilot who, as most members of the Roman
upper class, spoke Greek.
JESUS'
LAST “GEMERAL ORDERS” ABOVE IN ARAMAIC:
The interlinear translations of the above verse, in
the Christ's own mother tongue,
yields the results: “They are sufficient”.
This
variation from “they are enough”
is more-than-sufficient to cast serious doubts on the comments of
some that Jesus was being sarcastic about his disciples' reaction to
his declaration that they should have swords about them in the
future. The first translation implies a dismissal of a wrongful
reaction to His earlier statements; The latter a clear statement that
two swords are “sufficient” to meet the needs of travelers. [This
mistranslation is as wrong as giving “Thou shall not murder!” as
“Thou shall not kill!”.]
After all, the roads of that time were not secure
from bandits and other ill-doers as Roman and local “law
enforcement” provided little security even within cities, let alone
on the roads.
THE BIAS OF TRANSLATORS & COMMENTATORS:
After reading the many and very varied translations of the noted text
and the even more varied comments on it, I can only conclude that
some of those persons put into those words what they wished them to
mean, too often by convoluted arguments without sound premises or
tempered logic. There is certainly no consistency on the
interpretation of these verses. Some of these individuals could well
be described as “Pathological Pacifists”! They might have done
better by applying Occam's
Razor and accepted
that the words meant what they said (In Aramaic).
IRONY
AND SARCASM:
I am neither a biblical scholar nor an expert on language usages.
However, it appears to me that even the most emphatic and pointed of
Jesus' corrective teaching and chiding, often in parables, is ironic
and without the harshness of sarcasm.
Therefore, there is great doubt as to the validity
of the statements of commentators who declare that the Christ was
being sarcastic in his (Mistranslated as “That is enough”.) “That
is sufficient”.
MOSAIC
& NATURAL LAW & DEADLY FORCE:
Here I will diverge from the actual verses noted above and travel to
the related question of the use of force as appears to bother too
many who fail to understand the history of this subject.
From the Talmud
(Moses killing the Egyptian attacking the Hebrew slave; And other
verses as to slaying evil-doers) to the Torah
(It is permitted to kill a night time burglar or trespasser The
foundation of some jurisdiction's “Castle Laws”?) to such
luminaries of our Anglo-American Law as Hobbs, Locke & Blackstone
to even the very recent US Supreme Court's majority decision in
District Of
Columbia VS Heller
the Natural Law right of self-defense (And defense of innocent
others) has been supported. The means (Modern handguns) to enforce
that right was the real cause-in-action for the Heller
case, where the majority decision relied on Natural Law to support
its decision.
For the Orthodox and Catholics explaining the
meaning of the scriptures gives greatest authority to the Ecumenical
Councils of the Church and, to some extent, the lesser councils and
synods. [If anyone can inform me of any decisions of such as to the
use of force to defend self and innocent others against criminal
attacks, I would be happy to receive such information.]
Catholics, of
course, accept the rare ex
cathedra decisions
of the Pope as to (Only) matters of Faith and morals [Same request!].
Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches also give
great weight to the early Church Fathers. Catholics, at the least,
grant those persons designated as “Doctors Of The Church” great
authority in matters of Faith and morals AND in interpretation of
the meaning of the Gospels.
The only “Doctor
Of The Church” who, as far as I know, directly addressed the use of
deadly force was St. Bernard of Clairvaux who (In his De
Laude Novae Militae)
mentioned the “two swords”, closely outlined when Christians may
use deadly force AND noted that “the edge of the sword” could be
used to defend Christ and His Church.
He also noted that St. John the Baptist did not
demand that soldiers give up their profession; But, only that they
not abuse their authority.
The Christ, of course, gave great honor to the
Centurion (A professional soldier and, if you will, a professional
killer) and to his Faith.
"PUT
UP YOUR SWORD”:
To my mind, Christ's command to St. Peter was a “special case” as
Jesus's capture, death and resurrection was necessary for the
salvation-of-mankind; Such a special case not being a model for other
situations or for such lesser persons as ourselves.
LEGIONS
OF ANGELS:
Yes, the Christ could have called upon “Legions Of Angels” to
protect his followers as well as himself. Yet, as to His followers,
that would have eliminated the virtue of their becoming witnesses
(Martyrs) to Him and his teachings before the world's authorities of
that time, rather than having the protection of two swords against
common bandits. As to Himself, the same applies as in the paragraph
above.
SWORDS AND THE STATE:
Of course, those (eg
Mr. Mark Shea) who place special weight on the words of St. Paul
should recall his approval of the State's use of the sword to punish
evil doers.
Some others had thought that the “two swords”
referred to the division of authority between Kings (Civil
governments) and the Church. This is not scriptural as it derives
from the Reformation and is, at best, a strained argument.
AN EXCELLENT PRINTED DISCUSSION:
The following book is worth reading on general principle and
especially as to the use of force and justified war:
Webster. Alexander F.C. (Fr.) & Cole, Darrell
(Professor);
The
Virtue Of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East and
West;
Regina
Orthodox Press (Salisbury, MA);
ISBN 1-928653-17-1.
This volume's
positions and arguments can be extended, in part, to personal
self-defense when the State or international-organizations are unable
or, sad to write, unwilling to aid the innocent from criminal attack
(eg By the Jihadi
in the Sudan against the Pagan, Christian and some Muslim peoples of
that nation/criminal-organization).
INSULTS & TURNED CHEEKS:
Yes, the Christ told us to respond to insults, even to a slap to the
face, by “turning/offering the other cheek”. That is, even the
most gross insults are not an excuse for such evils as revenge.
To better understand this, it must be remembered
that for time immemorial any blow to the head or face was the worst
of insults in most cultures. Even in the “civilized” Western
world, it has not been so many years since such a blow would result
in two “gentlemen” standing ten-paces from each other with
pistols in hand and murder in their hearts.
Yet, I do not find in the Scriptures any
instructions to accept murder, rape, genocide, mutilation or even
robbery/theft (The taking of that part of a honest person's life
expended in earning property) without taking effective and immediate
actions to forestall the execution of such crimes. Such are beyond
insults and are dealt with, above, in the “Natural Law” section
of this essay.
CONCLUSION—AN
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION:
It appears that Jesus had sent his disciples out before the time of
the noted verses without anything and with some very restrictive
commands. Perhaps, some of them were confronted by evil men on the
unsafe roads of that time. Perhaps, Jesus then wished them to have
the “sufficient” protection of “two swords”, being enough to
ward off bandits without giving the appearance of an armed party.
This appears to be the simplest explanation of those verses and,
therefore, the best one.
