Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: February 17, 2008
PETER’S SWORD
Ben Justice
On the night of our Lord’s betrayal, at the hands of Judas, one of the Lord’s disciples, in
seeking to defend Jesus from being arrested, “drew his sword, and struck a servant of the
high priest’s, and smote off his ear” (Matt. 26:51). All gospel writers wrote of this incident,
but only John gave us the disciple’s name, and it was Simon Peter (John 18:10). From the
language given in Luke’s account, all the disciples had the same idea, which was to defend
Jesus. Luke 22:49-50 states, “When they (i.e. apostles) which were about him saw what would
follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the
servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.” (Luke 22:49). However, it was actually
Peter who went through with it. Maybe this was because the others did not have enough
time, since Jesus told Peter to put up his sword (Matt. 26:52), or Peter was not about to
wait on an answer from Jesus. The servant’s name was Malchus (John 18:10). No one
really believes that Peter just wanted to cut off his ear. As Robertson noted, “Evidently
Peter aimed to cut off the man’s head, not his ear . . .” (A.T. Robertson, “Word Pictures
in the New Testament — Matthew/Mark,” Vol. 1, Pg. 216). By putting together all the
accounts, we get the full picture (see Mark 14:47; Matt. 26:51; Luke 22:50; John 18:10).
In response to Peter’s actions, Jesus said in Matt. 26:52, “Put up again thy sword into his
place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” There are two Greek
words rendered “sword” in the NT. There is machaira, which is the word used in this
passage. This word is found 29 times in the NT. Then, there is the word rhomphaia, which
is used 7 times in the NT and is found every time in the book of Revelation, with the
exception of Luke 2:35. Again, the word used here is machaira. Vine defines the word as “a
short sword or dagger” (“Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testament Words,” Pg. 613). Some say it was just a “knife,” but that doesn’t really seem
to fit the context. The language implies that Peter was swinging a sword, and he had a
sheath with which to hold it. Not one time is this Greek word translated “knife.” This
Greek word is also used in Luke 21:24, where Jesus prophesied of the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans that occurred in A.D. 70. Jesus said, “And they shall fall by the
edge of the sword, . . .” Obviously, “sword” here refers to an instrument used in war. This
is hardly a “knife.” In Acts 12:2, it says that Herod “killed James the brother of John with
the sword” (machaira). Again, hardly a “knife.”
Why did Jesus tell Peter to put up his sword? Jesus answered this in Matt. 26:52-54. It
is our intention to focus upon the statement Jesus made in the latter part of v. 52 — “for
all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” This is certainly a difficult
statement to understand. It would do us well first of all to understand what Jesus is not
teaching. I do not believe the statement that one brother made. He said that this
statement “. . . reminds us that violence is never the solution to a problem” (Billy R.
Smith, “The Book of Matthew,” 1988 Getwell Lectures — Garland Elkins & Thomas
B. Warren, Editors, Pg. 659). His statement is simply too broad and contradicts other
Scriptures that teach sometimes violence can be rendered to solve a problem.
In Rom. 13:4, the inspired apostle penned these words, “For he is the minister of God to thee
for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he
is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” In the context,
Paul was speaking about the civil powers or civil government. The expression “beareth not
the sword in vain” is a figure of speech that means capital punishment. In Acts 25:11,
Paul recognized the right of civil government to exercise execution upon evildoers. What
Paul said in both places is but an echo of the great truth set forth in Gen. 9:6, “Whoso
sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
Capital punishment is a God-authorized form of violence. The statement that Jesus made,
“for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” can’t possibly mean, as R.C.
Foster noted, “. . . that law and order are abolished and the innocent and the helpless left
to the mercy of the wicked oppressor” (R.C. Foster, “Studies in the Life of Christ,” Pg.
1239).
Let’s apply this statement directly to Peter’s case. What could Peter have expected in
return? No doubt, Jesus was saying, “Peter, if you use the sword, then expect the sword
in return by which you will perish.” But, it is significant that Jesus used the plural
pronoun “they.” Therefore, these words were not limited just to Peter’s case, but “all they”
that take the sword. Jesus was certainly not teaching that every and all forms of defensive
measures are sinful. As Lenski declared, it refers to “those who, like Peter, arrogate (to
claim without right — BJ) the sword that represents violence and bloodshed. This sword
shall strike back at them with just retribution” (R.C.H. Lenski, “Commentary on
Matthew,” Pg. 1051).
Here is a most intriguing question? Why did Peter have the sword to begin with? He had
it for some reason. As we have already noted, sword (machaira) is used quite frequently in
the NT to denote and instrument that was used to fight with. It is interesting to note as
well that Jesus did not tell Peter to throw away his sword, but simply to sheath it. There
were obviously some legitimate uses for the sword.
In Luke 22:35-38, Luke spoke in reference to an incident that occurred between Jesus and
his disciples that he alone records. It is indeed a perplexing context with some
difficulties. Note the text:
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye
anything? And they said, Nothing. (36) Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse,
let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and
buy one. (37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he
was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (38) And they
said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Jesus referred back to the time when he had sent his disciples out on the limited
commission, recorded in Matt. 10:5ff. In Matt. 10:9-10, we have mention of the “purse”
and “scrip.” “Scrip” was simply a traveler’s handbag or pouch for holding provisions. Now,
in Luke 10:1ff, Jesus sent out the seventy disciples on a commission. He told them,
“Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way” (Luke 10:4). Keep in
mind what Jesus asked the disciples here in Luke 22:35. He asked them if they lacked
anything, even though they didn’t have a purse or scrip or shoes. The disciples said,
“Nothing.” Now, note the contrast in v. 36 that Jesus made: “But now.” “Now” the
disciples were to take a purse and scrip. He further told them, “he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one” (v. 36). The daunting question is this: “Why the change
from one of not having these things to one of having these things?” Very simply, because
conditions had changed. I believe Barnes’ stated it accurately:
“The Savior says the times are changed. Before, he sent them out only for a little time.
They were in their own country. Their journeys would be short, and there was no need
that they should make preparation for a long absence, or for encountering great dangers.
But now they were to go into the wide world, among strangers, trials, dangers, and wants.
And as the time was near; as he was about to die; as these dangers pressed on, it was
proper that they should make provision for what was before them” (Albert Barnes, “Luke,”
Pg. 150).
So, what about the sword that Jesus told his apostles to buy? Scores of commentators
take the position that Jesus was not referring to a literal sword, but only speaking in an
allegorical way. However, the context is clear and language demands that Jesus was
speaking literally, that they were to buy a literal sword. To say that “sword” was used
figuratively is to create some difficulties within the context:
1.) If “sword” is to be taken figuratively, then to be consistent you would have to take
“purse” and “scrip” figuratively as well. If not, why not?
2.) In v. 38, the disciples said to Jesus, “Lord, behold, here are two swords.” Were the
disciples looking at two figurative swords or two literal swords? Lenski is correct when he
observed, “The language is not figurative. Purse, wallet, sword are not to be allegorized
into something spiritual as the ancient fathers thought they must be. . . . He, indeed,
meant sword and not something allegorical. . . . But ‘sword’ in v. 36 and ‘swords’ in this
verse (v. 38 — BJ) are the same word and cannot be given two meanings as has been
proposed” (R.C.H. Lenski, “Commentary on Luke,” Pg. 1068, 1070). Barnes also made
an excellent observation: “But it should be remembered that these directions about the
purse, the scrip, and the sword, were not made with reference to his being taken in the
garden, but with reference to their future life” (Albert Barnes, “Luke,” Pg. 150).
When the disciples said to Jesus in v. 38, “Lord, behold, here are two swords,” Jesus then
said, “It is enough.” Jesus was not referring to the two swords being enough. “Swords” is
plural, but Jesus responded in the singular — “It is enough,” not, “They are enough.” The
text does not say this, nor does it say, “The two swords are enough,” but simply, “It is
enough.” The context bears out in v. 39 that Jesus was simply saying, “Enough has been
said; let’s press on.” The very next verse tells us that they came out and went to the
Mount of Olives (v. 39).
Again, we ask the question, “Why did Jesus instruct them to buy a sword?” Isn’t the
reason obvious: For self-defense and protection. Again, Barnes noted, “The reason was
that the country was full of robbers and wild beasts, and it was necessary to carry, in their
travels, some means of defense” (Ibid.). One brother made this statement of truth:
“Though they might need to ‘buy a sword’ for self-defense, in the work of the kingdom they
would use only the ‘sword of the Spirit’ (Eph. 6:10-18” (Gary Colley, “Luke,” Fifth Annual
Firm Foundation Lectureship, William S. Cline — Editor, Pg. 528).