I’m often asked about a particular passage of the Bible, and its relation to the gun debates in the United States. I’m posting this essay here as a resource for those interested in this issue (drawn from my book on God and guns) and including other sources in the footnotes for those who want to read in more depth about it.
One of the New Testament texts that is often used to justify owning and using a gun is Luke 22:35–38. I’ve encountered many Christians who claim that this passage justifies owning and using a firearm, for self-defense and the defense of others. But it is clear that this interpretation of the passage is mistaken.
Before we examine the passage, consider the following argument concerning a Christian worldview and the Second Amendment:
Swords were used to kill people in Jesus’ day. Did Jesus rail against the presence of swords and demand that no one but soldiers should carry them? No, in fact, he told His disciples that he who had no sword should buy one because of the troubled days ahead. Peter was carrying his sword in the garden when Jesus was arrested. While Jesus kept Peter from interfering with His arrest, Jesus did not use that situation to initiate a “sword control” campaign. Perhaps a more sensible way to control gun violence would be to encourage law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, particularly in public areas. This approach creates a deterrent against the insane, the criminal, and a future government gone amok.[1]
Jesus may not have railed against the presence of swords, and he did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword in this passage. But we must not forget that in Matthew’s narration of the same story, Jesus told him “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
But what about Luke 22:35-38? Does it support the claim that Christians can own and use weapons for self-defense? Is it in fact applicable to this issue, in the way many believe? The lessons to be drawn from this passage are not as clear as many seem to think.
Again, context is key. In this passage, prior to his arrest, Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword if they don’t have one:
He said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.” He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough” (Luke 22:35-38).
There are three primary ways of interpreting this passage and then determining the possible implications it has for us today. Some take the instructions of Jesus to buy swords as a justification for having weapons for self-defense. Others see a symbolic warning to the disciples concerning what is to come. Still others interpret it as a fulfillment of prophecy. This last interpretation is the best.
In the opening of Gospel of Luke, the text records a promise to Theophilus, the intended reader, that what follows contains an account of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, so that Theophilus would know the truth about these things. The task of Luke’s Gospel is “to reassure his readers of the place of the Gentiles in the new community and the role of Jesus in God’s plan.”[2]
In Luke 22:35–38, Jesus is speaking to his disciples during the Passover meal. This passage falls within the final section of this gospel, where Luke reveals how the death of Jesus was not the end, but a new beginning. The mission of the disciples becomes clear, in light of what God has done in and through Christ. Given the importance of understanding this mission, a proper interpretation and application of this passage is significant.
The first primary way that some interpret this passage is as a justification for arming oneself for the sake of self-defense. The disciples will be traveling and vulnerable. In light of this they should have a weapon for protection. Wayne Grudem makes this very argument in his discussion of this passage, arguing that “Jesus seemed to encourage his disciples to have swords for self-defense.”[3] Grudem states that it was common for people to carry swords for self-defense against robbers, or to defend others under attack. The passage reveals that Jesus allowed at least two of the disciples to carry swords. When Jesus says, “it is enough,” the meaning is that two swords are enough for this purpose. No more are needed at present.
A second way of interpreting this passage is by seeing the instructions of Jesus to buy swords as symbolic. The idea is that Jesus was not literally commanding his followers to purchase swords, but rather that he was making them aware of the suffering and afflictions to come. In their previous missionary journey, they were instructed to seek out hospitality, taking nothing for their journey (Luke 9). Now, however, Jesus instructs them to sell their cloak if need be in order to buy a sword. On the symbolic interpretation of this passage, Jesus is attempting to communicate to the disciples that, like him, they will soon face hostility. The intention is to warn the disciples to be ready for opposition, animosity, and hostility. As Joel Green puts the point, “[m]ention of the need to purchase a sword adds to this picture a metaphorical reference to the coming reality. The possibility that Jesus’ followers are literally to respond to hostility with a sword—that is, with violence—is negated in Luke 22:49-51.”[4] In this latter passage, a disciple cuts off the ear of a slave of the high priest with a sword. Jesus rebukes him, healing the slave. But in Luke 22, the disciples mistakenly take him literally. When Jesus says “It is enough,” he is expressing exasperation at their lack of understanding, and ending the discussion on this topic.
The third primary way of interpreting Luke 22:35–38 is as a fulfillment of prophecy. There is much to commend this reading. If we read the passage in a straightforward manner, on its own terms, then we can see that the point of Jesus’s instructing his disciples to purchase swords is the fulfillment of prophecy.[5] After the instruction to buy a sword, Jesus goes on to say “For I tell you, the scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” The prophecy referred to here is from Isaiah 53:12. According to G.W.H. Lampe, Luke takes this passage to apply to Jesus, who is now “numbered with the transgressors,” because his disciples are armed with swords. Since they are armed, they are now transgressors of the law. One will even use a sword later in the Garden of Gethsemane, as we have already seen. Two swords are “enough” to fulfill this prophecy.[6]
Earlier, in Luke 18:31, Jesus has told his disciples that all that the prophets wrote about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. This places the passage in Luke 22 within a framework of the fulfillment of prophecy. More specifically, the reference to Isaiah 53:12 comes directly after the command to purchase swords. When Luke reports Jesus saying “For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me,” he is linking the prophecy with the instruction to buy swords. As Neville puts the point, the context shows that “Jesus’ instruction to his disciples to purchase swords finds its rationale in the scriptural saying about the suffering servant being counted among the lawless ones.”[7] This prophecy is fulfilled immediately by the response of the disciples that they have two swords, which are in their possession when Jesus is arrested in the garden.
In context, Jesus predicts the future betrayal of Judas, the denial of Peter, and the subsequent repentance of his apostles. Each of these predictions of Jesus are fulfilled, including the prophecy concerning the swords and his being numbered among the transgressors. In fact, v. 37 is in the present tense. It can be translated “what is written about me here and now is finding its fulfillment.”[8] All of the predictions, then, of Luke 22:21–38, are fulfilled in the Passion narrative. When arrested, Jesus is counted among the lawless, among the transgressors.
But what about the self-defense interpretation? Is this passage in Luke applicable in this way? Does it support the claim that Christians can own and use weapons, for self-defense and perhaps other purposes as well? Recall Luke 22:47–51. After Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave, Jesus tells him, “No more of this!” Jesus then heals the injured slave. For many, this shows that Jesus must not be advocating violence in Luke 22:35–38.
The prophetic interpretation is preferable and the majority explanation among biblical scholars. The point is not that the disciples should purchase a weapon to use for violence against others or for protection of themselves.[9] Using this passage as a justification for those views is a mistake. The prophetic interpretation is the most natural, and is the best way of understanding this passage.
In sum, while many gun rights advocates interpret Luke 22:35–38 as a justification for the status quo and a Christian right to arm ourselves, it is wrong to do so. Christian defenders of owning and using guns for such purposes will have to look elsewhere for Scriptural support of their position. Using this passage to justify arming oneself is to misuse and misapply the words of Jesus.[10]
[1]. Steve Cable, “A Christian Worldview Appraisal of Gun Control and the Second Amendment,” Probe Ministries(blog)(https://probe.org/a-christian-worldview-appraisal-of-gun-control-and-the-second-amendment/).
[2]. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 1992), 495; 498–502.
[3]. Wayne A. Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010), 194, 202–3.
[4]. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1997), 774. Others who argue for the symbolic interpretation include Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1996); James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2015); and I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
[5]. Advocates of this interpretation, from which the following is drawn, include Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1985); G.W.H. Lampe, “The Two Swords (Luke 22:35-38),” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, eds. Ernst Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (Cambridge University Press, 1984), 335–51; Paul Minear, “A Note on Luke XXII 36,” Novum Testamentum 7 (1964): 128–34; and Neville, The Vehement Jesus.
[6]. Lampe, “The Two Swords (Luke 22:35-38),” 341–42, 347.
[7]. Neville, The Vehement Jesus, 106.
[8]. Minear, “A Note on Luke XXII 36,” 131.
[9]. Moyer Hubbard, “‘Let the One Who Has No Sword, Buy One’: The Biblical Argument for Gun Control, Part Two,” The Good Book Blog - Biola University Blogs (blog), (https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2014/let-the-one-who-has-no-sword-buy-one-the-biblical-argument-for-gun-control-part-two).
[10]. Adapted from my God and Guns in America (Eerdmans, 2020): https://amzn.to/3puRRFs