Of Kisses and Betrayals and Swords and Ears

Additionally, He made this statement:

“But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’” Luke 22:36–38

Why did Jesus tell His apostles to buy swords? Many commentators make the point that Jesus was preparing them in some way, and this makes sense according to verse 35,

“And He said to them, ‘When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?’”

Jesus was referring to Matthew 10:5ff, when He had sent the apostles two by two to preach the kingdom. In His provision, they depended for their needs from those to whom they preached; but even in that context from verse 9 on, He warns them of difficult times to come.

That point, however, does not really answer the question: why did Jesus tell the apostles to buy swords? According to the Bible Knowledge Commentary, there are four possible reasons:

“(1) Some understand the words as a rebuke to the disciples. If that were the case, then Jesus was saying, ‘Enough of this kind of talk!’ (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 310)”
Would the apostles have understood this as a rebuke? They had just heard Jesus tell them to sell a garment and buy a sword and would have assumed He meant just what He said. If having swords was not the point or necessary, why did He allow them to keep the swords?

“(2) Others understand the words to denote the fact that even two swords are enough to show human inadequacy at stopping God’s plan for the death of Christ. Swords could not stop God’s purpose and plan.”
The crux of the matter is that nothing, not even a multitude, could stop God’s plan. And who needed to know that, the apostles? They had already been told that what had been written about Jesus would be fulfilled. And those gathered to crucify Jesus had no idea what God’s plan was. It seems silly to think that Jesus was going to use two swords to show someone that God would not be stopped.

“(3) Jesus may simply have been saying that two swords were adequate for the 12 of them.” This point is likely true in any event and doesn’t really address the question.

“(4) Others see the clause in conjunction with the quotation from Isaiah and understand Jesus to mean that by possessing two swords they would be classified by others as transgressors or criminals. This fourth view seems preferable.”
This prophecy is found in Isaiah 53:12 “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” Note that Jesus specifically says that the prophecy must be accomplished “in Him.” He does not include the apostles. In addition, Mark, in 15:28, applies Isaiah’s prophecy to Jesus’ crucifixion between two thieves, not being with apostles who had swords. So much for this choice’s being preferable.

Any of these, though, are marginally preferable to the thought of Elwell in his commentary, “Jesus’ words on acquiring a sword (v. 36) should not be interpreted literally [emphasis mine, sl]; they are a sign of the conflict and opposition which the disciples will face.”

This view and related ideas result from the view that Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:39, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also”, means that Christians have no authority to defend themselves or others. Jesus could not possibly mean literal swords then. What would the disciples of Jesus do with literal swords?

Should we, then, take as figurative the need for a money bag and a knapsack? Jesus was not telling them to have money, a knapsack, and a sword but merely that they would have needs and conflicts when He was gone? This thought is disingenuous.

Even if I cannot agree with everything he says here, Butler, at least, acknowledges the straightforwardness of the passage, “The present situation was quite different. Take whatever supplies and resources you have, Jesus told them. You will especially need a weapon for self-defense. Go sell whatever is necessary to get one. Satan had come after Jesus and his followers in full force. The persecution and arrests were about to begin. They must be ready to protect themselves.”

I do not believe, though, any of these attempted explanations really answers the question: Why did Jesus tell the Apostles to buy swords? Though some believe teh question was answered in the upper room with Jesus saying in essence, “never use swords,” I disagree. His lesson is yet to be taught, as we shall see.

Jesus, we have seen, already said that what was written had to be accomplished. He had predicted they would find a donkey and room for the supper. He identified his betrayer. He gave detail as to His impending death in Luke 18:31-3. In Matthew 26:31 “Then Jesus said to them, ‘All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: “I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.”’” He predicted Peter’s denial in Luke 22:34, “Then He said, ‘I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.’” John 18:4 speaks of Jesus’ “knowing all things that would come upon Him.” 

Here we have a bit of a quandary. Either Jesus carelessly and ignorantly allowed the most impetuous apostle, Peter, to keep a sword in the face of the upcoming betrayal or Jesus knowingly allowed Peter to cause injury to another person with that sword.

Let’s put the gospel records together to try to understand.

“Judas, who betrayed Him, also knew the place; for Jesus often met there with His disciples. And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, having received a detachment of troops with a great multitude with lanterns, torches, swords, and clubs, came from the chief priests and Pharisees and elders of the people.

Now His betrayer had given them a sign saying, ‘Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him and lead Him away safely.’ Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, ‘Greetings, Rabbi!’ and kissed Him. But Jesus said to him, ‘Friend, why have you come? Are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?’

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, ‘Whom are you seeking?’ They answered Him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am He.’ And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. Now when He said to them, ‘I am He,’ they drew back and fell to the ground. Then He asked them again, ‘Whom are you seeking?’ And they said, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus answered, ‘I have told you that I am He. Therefore, if you seek Me, let these go their way,’ that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, ‘Of those whom You gave Me I have lost none.’

Then Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.’

The word for detachment according to Mounce can be “used for a Roman cohort, about 600 soldiers.” Judas came potentially with 600 armed Roman soldiers and a multitude, some of whom carried swords, and at least one servant of the High Priest as we shall see. What could twelve men with two swords have done against such a gathering? Obviously, Jesus knew that two swords would not be “enough” to thwart such a gathering. Why, then, did Jesus tell His apostles to buy swords?

When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’ And suddenly,  Simon Peter, who was with Jesus, having a sword, stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. 

The apostles sensed danger and asked Jesus if they should use the two swords He told them were enough. Before the words were out of their mouths, Peter drew one sword and cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest. Jesus must have known Peter would do what He did. He knew that the result of that action would be the wounding of someone else.

But Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Permit even this.’ And He touched his ear and healed him. ‘Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?’”

Here is where Jesus teaches the lesson He wanted to teach His apostles about swords, and He makes several points in doing so. First, He tells Peter to put his sword “in its place.” Aside from a command to cease fighting, Jesus was telling Peter that the place for the sword in this type of situation was in the sheath. Second and further, He tells Peter what we commonly shorten to “live by the sword, die by the sword.” Was Peter “living by the sword?” Peter took up the sword and used it in offense. Jesus was showing that this is not going to be the proper use for a sword after He was gone. Times of persecution for the word will not demand the use of a literal sword. Third, Jesus shows how unnecessary such an action is when He could call thousands of angels to His defense. And fourth, His death had to take place. It was the fulfillment of the Father’s plan to save mankind. Was Peter thinking he could stop what was happening? If so, Jesus was telling him not even to try.

Why did Jesus tell the apostles to buy swords? Because He knew that Peter would have the sword, that Peter would use the sword to attack, and that He could illustrate that it was not going to be so after He was gone. The gospel is not spread by the sword, not a literal sword anyway, Ephesians 6:17. It would be the preaching of Jesus and their example and the working of God in signs, miracles, and wonders that call people to God. Interestingly, we never see the apostles using swords. They learned the lesson of that night in which Jesus was betrayed.

But I wonder about Malchus. Of all those Peter could have struck, it was a mere servant of the high priest. We know nothing about him: how big or small, how young or old. We do know that in one moment his ear is gone, his head is bleeding profusely, he is holding his hands over the place where it was, maybe he is moaning or in shock. Then in the next moment, his ear is back on his head, the blood is gone, there is no pain. It is as if it never happened. I would love to know what Malchus thought and what Malchus did as a result of that miracle’s being performed publicly in front of the crowd but also directly on his person. Was he hardened against the way? Or did he change his mind about it? It is the choice all men have to make in light of this incredible man, Jesus.

January 2024 | GROW magazine