Some Christians who support the right to bear arms cite Luke 22:36 as support for their views, saying that Jesus instructed his disciples to arm themselves. But is that a correct interpretation of the verse? Here is the full passage from Luke’s Gospel:
35 “He said to them, ‘When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?’ ‘No, nothing,’ they replied. 36 He said to them, ‘But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.’ 38 Then they said, ‘Lord, look, there are two swords here.’ But he replied, ‘It is enough!’” [New American Bible]
Jesus is speaking figuratively here, but his disciples misunderstand his statement and take it literally—the same mistake Christian supporters of gun rights make.
The disciples’ misunderstanding of Jesus and his message is a prominent theme in Mark’s Gospel. See, e.g., Mark 4:13-14, 6:51-52, 7:17-18, 8:14-21 (where they again take a figurative reference literally), 8:32-33, and 9:9-10. But it is found in Luke’s Gospel as well, e.g., Luke 8:9-10, 9:44-45, 9:52-56, and 18:31-34. Hence, the disciples’ misunderstanding in Luke 22:35-38 is hardly surprising.
But how do we know Jesus is speaking figuratively in this passage? There are three main reasons.
First, just 11 verses later, in Luke 22:49-51, one of Jesus’ disciples pulls out an actual sword and strikes the high priest’s servant, cutting off his ear. Jesus sharply rebukes the disciple: “Stop, no more of this!” And he touches the servant’s ear and heals him. Jesus wanted nothing to do with the use of swords, even against those wanting to arrest him unjustly.
Second, Jesus concludes the dialogue in Luke 22:35-38 by exclaiming, “It is enough!” He is not saying the disciples’ two swords are sufficient. Two swords would obviously not have been enough, if Jesus had been speaking literally and had intended armed conflict. Rather, he is saying, “Enough of this foolishness!" [1] As the explanatory note in the New American Bible states, “The farewell discourse ends abruptly with these words of Jesus spoken to the disciples when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world’s hostility.” Jesus is using “sword” figuratively in Luke 22:36, just as he does in Matthew 10:34-36 (compare Luke 12:51-53), and he is exasperated by the disciples’ lack of understanding.
Third, a literal interpretation of Luke 22:36 would be inconsistent with everything else Jesus taught and did. He was completely nonviolent, and he taught his disciples a way of nonviolent love. Not only were the disciples not to kill, but they were not even to be angry with another (Matthew 5:21-22). If attacked, they were not to defend themselves but to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:29). They were commanded to love their enemies and pray for those who mistreated them (Matthew 5:44-45; Luke 6:27-28). If someone took what was theirs, they were not to demand it back (Luke 6:30). The disciples were to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), to love their neighbors as themselves (Matthew 22:39; Luke 10:27-28), and to treat others as they wanted to be treated (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31).
Jesus further taught his disciples that whoever wished to save his or her life would lose it, but whoever lost it for Jesus’ sake would save it (Matthew 10:25; Mark 8:35). And he told them not to fear those who could kill the body but not the soul (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4).
Finally, Jesus rejected any use of force, even in legitimate self-defense. When he sent the Twelve out on mission, he forbade them from taking a walking stick, which means they were defenseless against both people and animals (Matthew 10:9-10; Luke 9:3). And he told his would-be defender in the Garden of Gethsemane to put away his sword (Matthew 26:52; Luke 22:49-51).
The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century (2022, p. 1352) explains Luke 22:35-38 as follows:
"[Concern] that the Twelve do not yet fully comprehend the danger they all are about to confront leads Jesus to be more direct with them by recalling the two missionary journeys he had commissioned earlier in his ministry [Luke 9:1-6, 10:1‑12]. . . .
"In both cases, Jesus limits what they can take, presumably because of the immediate need as well as their ability to depend on the hospitality of others for their upkeep, but now, the situation has changed. There is hostility, and they must be able to sustain themselves for a significant time.
"Luke has Jesus identify himself with the suffering servant (Isa 52:13-53:12), one of the prophetic passages for interpreting the passion and death . . . . The apostles, ferreting around for a sword, show their obtuseness by taking literally Jesus’ comments. In exasperation and with a good deal of annoyance, Jesus closes the conversation with an angry 'It is enough!'” (22:38). [2]
It is clear, therefore, that Luke 22:36, properly understood, provides no support for a right to bear arms.
Bob More
Pax Christi Metro DC-Baltimore
November 1, 2024
For a PDF version of this essay, click here.
Image: Roman Gladius by HellfireForge, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.
[2] See also The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990, p. 716): “The reference to [a sword] must be taken in the total context of Luke-Acts and the immediate context of vv 38,47-53. Since Luke narrates in his Gospel that Jesus not only preached love of enemies (6:26-36) but also lived that teaching (9:51-55; 23:34), and since he narrates in Acts that Paul and other missionaries never use swords, he cannot mean by ‘sword’ here a lethal weapon. Since in v 38 Luke depicts Jesus’ disgust with the disciples’ literal understanding of his words in v 36 and since he reprimands the use of a sword in 22:47-53 and even heals the wounded person, Luke cannot mean by ‘sword’ here a destructive weapon.”