Luke 22: 36 Commentary

I will put this on 1 Peter 2:9. Luke 22:36 deals with the topic of promoting guns in the church.

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God,” NIV Cf. 1 Peter 2:9.

You are right that God promotes nationalism. Christians are the nation of God.

Politics and the manipulators in the church today is an important subject. Example : religious right, focus on the family and Shaw Hannity. These are individuals that get brought up in sermons!

There is little difference between the Catholic crusaders and America today.

I have seen patriotic sermons on the current wars that have no place in the church. I think I am the only one who can see this is wrong.

A Christian in America is no better than a Christian in Iraq. I have read where Christianity has declined in Iraq after our invasion.

People in the church I attend will actually pray for the troops ‘as they spread the gospel in Iraq’. After viewing the ‘wici leaks’ it is obvious the large number of our troops are hindering the gospel.

The VP of Afghanistan shows up in Africa to bank 50 million of US taxpayer dollars. Packastans leaders have banked even more. Hello tea party where are you! Oh, I forgot you guys are for the war.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2011 22:15 pm

“He took no part in political wrangling and neither did Paul.” But Paul took full advantage of his Roman citizenship and used that political standing to great effect on more than one occasion. When he commented that he had been unjustly imprisoned and about to beaten, the Roman soldiers protected him from the mob. (Acts 22 & 23) He was willing to use the power of the State to further the gospel and to protect his life. And in Acts 16 he was beaten and the town leaders apologized and were afraid, for if Paul had reported this abuse, the whole town could have been massacred for abusing a Roman citizen. And Jesus was killed for being a political revolutionary in the eyes of Rome and by report of the Sanhedrin in Luke 23 (cf John 19:12). In fact, Jesus’ whole assault on the Temple and money changers was prophetic, which as in all the Old Testament, was both religious and political, addressing the unjust rule of kings and government. The money changers supported 70,000 priests who were employed at the Temple in Jesus’ day. The Sanhedrin was unjust in the interpretation and application of the Law and Jesus was challenging their political and religious authority. Otherwise he would have been no threat. Politics is a moral issue, and therefore it is a religious issue as well.

By jefferis peterson (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2011 12:08 pm

Jesus said give to Caesar what is his and to God what is God’s. He took no part in political wrangling and neither did Paul. When we get side-tracked into debates, whether they be left wing, right wing, centre or of any other political persuasion we miss the whole point of the Gospel message.

By this I don’t mean that we should not vote or take a position informed by our conscience. That is a Christian duty. However, if we get bogged down on political issues we miss the big picture. Surely Jesus was saying: Do your duty regards Govt., Society and to your neighbour; but God is our ultimate objective.

Love of God and love of our neighbour sum up the whole of the law and the prophets according to Jesus. It’s where we must start and where we must end. That’s the goal, that’s the journey, that’s the prize. He said: “Be ye perfect as My Heavenly Father is perfect.” An impossible task without His Grace and help.
God Bless,
G.

By G. Gray (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2011 04:29 am

James Richter (Post #12) “On the topic of nationalism . . .”

Nationalism and patriotism have nothing to do with religion, the church, or spreading of the gospel. When God created the nations in Genesis 10:32, God did not have religion, the church, or spreading of the gospel in mind. God intervened because He saw that humankind was disorderly and would eventually destroy itself (Gen. 11:6) before He could resolve the angelic conflict.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2011 03:51 am

James Burton Coffman has a commentary on v.38 (2 swords), I dont know if it is right or not. It says
” {It is enough …} It is customary to interpret this expression as an assertion that the disciples were missing his point altogether, as if he had said, “Enough of this!” But there is no valid reason for supposing that these words mean anything other than “two swords are enough.” As a matter of fact, the swords were a necessary part of the drama of the Lords arrest. Jesus used the excision of Malchus’ ear as an occasion to command Peter to put up his sword into “its place,” a powerful endorsement of the premise that such a sword of self-defense HAS its place (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matt. 26:52). Significantly, even then, Jesus neither commanded Peter to throw his sword away or surrender it.”

Perhaps that will help you. It is a bit unclear.

On the topic of nationalism and the church: God created man in His image, not just Americans. The gospel needs to be spread to the whole world, not just America. Thats my opinion it may be right or wrong.

I am not a Jehovah’s Witness but their philosophy on politics is correct.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2011 02:50 am

James Richter (Post #9)

You wrote, “The tea party is all about getting people riled up. It is nationalism, which is not promoted by Jesus. Patriotism is a religion.”

God created nationalism and, thus, supports devoted love and loyalty to one’s own country, without which there would be the eventual disorder, destruction, and ruin of humankind (Gen. 10:32; Gen. 11:1-9). Humankind would destroy itself before God could resolve the angelic conflict that rages on in spiritual realms.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2011 02:04 am

Look, going against the Tea Party is just as political a position as being for it, so you aren’t avoiding politics by condemning it, you are in fact participating in it. If we look at Romans and Peter, we find that the governments are instituted of God for the repression of evil. Unlike monarchies, the USA was founded as a government of, by and for the people, and the idea of the militia was central to the people’s right to protect themselves from the excesses of government. The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government, and the right of enforcement of the Constitution is delivered to the people in the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Included in that Constitution is the prohibition of a standing army because the founders knew that a standing army was a danger to the liberties of the people and a temptation to tyranny. Therefore, the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8,
The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….

So, if we take Romans and Peter as part of the Word of God, then unlike any other nation, God has entrusted unto the People of the United States the role of Citizen Soldier, protector of the rights of the nation. Thus, the Constitution begins with:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We, the people, are the repository for the security of government and the suppression of evil according to Romans 13. That is not to say that nations have not abused this power in the name of religion, but the US was established to provide liberty of conscience and freedom from coercion in the name of religion (hence, the First Amendment). But the Gospel does not abolish government, nor does it have explicit instructions for Christians who are given responsibility within government Martin Luther saw this dilemma as he advised Christian princes.

My point is that old saw about the Crusades a wars between nations is a red herring, and does not address the text of the scripture. Barclay, as nice as a commentator as he is, should not be considered the best historical exegete of scripture.

By jefferis peterson (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2011 01:22 am

I am not a preacher. I may be wrong and caught up in current events, but look at the facts.

The Christian church was hijacked and steered into a brick wall. Militant Christianity is evident in history. Look at the crusades, wars between the Catholics and Protestants, etc. This is not what Christ intended.

The tea party is all about getting people riled up. It is nationalism, which is not promoted by Jesus. Patriotism is a religion.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/11/2011 23:52 pm

I have Wm. Barclay’s commentary on Luke and I don’t remember finding that in it when I read it. However, I’m not at home at present and will certainly take another look.

I’m an avid reader and great admirer of the works of Rev. Barclay, however I still don’t believe that his explanation was adequate. The words of Jesus can readily be translated into any language and still be understood without having to have an eastern mindset.

I think we have to be careful James in saying:
…”Jesus does not advocate violence of any kind. Unlike the gun-toting tea party nuts that rule the religious institutions today.”

That’s a pretty broad statement. Remember that it is very easy for all of us to point a finger. It’s Satan however that uses us to do his bidding and all of us have been led astray. Every human being God created is a brother or sister - regardless of race, color or creed. Everyone was created by Him and for Him - We must pray for everyone, Yes, even El Quaida and all militant terrorists, for Satan is using them to try and bring down the sons and daughters of God.

Sorry if it sounds as though I’m preaching; it’s just that we have to stop judging and use prayer to bring the peace that Jesus promised, for nothing else works.

By G. Gray (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/11/2011 22:30 pm

I don’t think Jesus was advocating purchasing weapons for self-defense.

Barclays commentary says “This was not an incitement to armed force. It was simply a vivid eastern way of telling the disciples that their very lives were at stake. No one could say that the seriousness and danger of the situation, and his own liability to collapse were not presented to Peter.”

Luke 22:52. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” NIV version.

Jesus does not advocate violence of any kind. Unlike the gun-toting tea party nuts that rule the religious institutions today.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/11/2011 21:54 pm

After reading various commentaries on Luke 22:36 I unfortunately haven’t found one that gives a satisfactory explanation regarding Jesus’ statement about the two swords. I don’t accept the fact that Jesus was advocating purchasing weapons for self-defence while spreading the Good News (Brigands or no Brigands) and Paul certainly didn’t think so either.

I desperately want to find a satisfactory explanation for this passage which is totally out of keeping with the Good News that Jesus proclaimed. I’m tending towards the belief that this was inserted into the Gospel by a scribe, or else the Greek has been misinterpreted.

I do hope that I can find a convincing answer as it really does seem to contradict the Gospel message and has left wiggle room for unscrupulous conduct throughout history.
God Bless.
G.

By G. Gray (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/11/2011 21:39 pm

My interpretation of this verse is that Jesus was giving the disciples new instructions for their journey after his departure. In the past, they needed nothing, but in the future, they would need to carry money and provisions, but why the sword? The Roman short sword seems to be in mind here. Jesus counseled his disciples to turn the other cheek or to carry a pack 2 stadia instead of one. Why? Because a Roman soldier could legally strike you once or compel you to carry his pack 1 stadia. Jesus was saying in effect, not to resist legitimate governmental authority no matter how unjust, but to prove God’s love in the Good News by going the extra mile and surprising your enemy by your response.
However, there this counsel may not have been meant for dealing with brigands and bandits, who might now accost the gospel missionaries on the road between cities. This type of robbery was common, but represented complete lawlessness, and the point of the attack had nothing to do with the witness of the gospel or as response to the gospel. In other words, it was not persecution for the gospel’s sake but mere lawlessness. Was Jesus instructing them to be ready to protect themselves against such common injustice? Perhaps so.

My research into Roman law is that while slaves, who were not body guards, were not allowed to carry weapons, free people were required to provide their own swords for service in times of crisis. Since the common person in Roman territories would have needed protection on their journeys, it seems that carrying swords for this purpose was allowed. The following is from the time of Justinian, dating back perhaps to Cicero, but the codification of Roman law allowing self defense.

I. SELF DEFENSE
Roman law was very protective of the individual’s right to defend himself and his property from violence, whether offered by a thief on a darkened highway or a soldier in search of plunder.viii A provision attributed to the late fourth century A.D. reads:
We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves (liberam resistendi cunctis tribuimus facultatem), so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a soldier, who trespasses upon fields at night in search of plunder, or lays by busy roads plotting to assault passers-by, to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all (permissa cuicumque licentia dignus ilico supplicio subiugetur). Let him suffer the death which he threatened and incur that which he intended (Codex Justinianus (“CJ”) 3.27.1).
The legislator then explains the rationale for this provision, stating, “For it is better to meet the danger at the time, than to obtain legal redress (vindicare) after one’s death.” And he concludes:
We therefore permit you to seek your own revenge (ultionem) and we join to this decree those situations which a legal judgment would be too late to remedy (quod serum est punire iudicio). Thus, let no one shrink from facing (parcat) a soldier, whom it is fitting to challenge with a weapon (telo), just as it is fitting to challenge a thief (A.D. 391).ix
This provision recognizes not only an individual’s right to self defense, but explicitly permits the private use of a weapon (telum) for the purpose of countering an assailant as well.
http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/JFPP%20WEBSITE%20FILES/16/The%20Roman%20Legal%20Treatment%20of%20Self%20Defense%20and%20the%20Private%20Possession%20of%20Weapons%20in%20the%20Codex%20Justinianus.pdf

By jefferis peterson (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/12/2010 13:46 pm

If a common person carrying a sword in Roman times was “illegal,” or simply “inappropriate,” why did the disciples have two swords at the last supper? Shouldn’t Jesus have told them to get RID of them and NOT to carry them, if swords were wrong to have? Shouldn’t Peter also have been arrested at the betrayal for having such a weapon on him? Actually, it sounds more like it was fairly routine for normal people to carry weapons then.

Using our(rather recent)stigma against personal weapons, we run all over and around the Luke 22 reference to “buying a sword” by trying to make it a spiritual sword only. Why not also make the other parts of the provisions spiritual only? The spiritual connotation justly can be applied, but the disciples clearly understood that He meant PHYSICAL items, and he did not correct their (mis?)understanding. Was He trying to mislead them? If so, He succeeded wildly. Why didn’t he clarify his meaning even a little?

As for Peter’s use of a sword at the betrayal, Jesus knew there was nothing to be gained by fighting to save him. In fact, it could have thwarted God’s plan for him to die.

We must see the words for what they ARE, not for what we WISH they were. Let us not try to read back our 21st century ideas and social stigmas into 1st century culture and society. All it will do is force strange interpretations into our understanding of scripture.

By Joe Lochamy (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/26/2009 13:49 pm

Thanks Mr. Celiktemur

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 321 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/4/2009 23:04 pm

Jason,
Although this is not a direct answer to your question, it seems that those who carried swords in those days were regarded as potential criminals or even bandits. So I would assume this was not regular practice, at least for those who cared about a good reputation.

By Bahadır Celiktemur (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/4/2009 12:31 pm

Does anyone know if the Romans allowed common people to carry swords?

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 321 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/22/2009 17:56 pm