That title needs to be clarified. Let’s look into his practical theology.

Let’s begin

I.. The Kingdom of God and the State

A. Brief intro.

Jesus distinguished between two kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar or the state. Of the kingdom of God, he further distinguished two godly kingdoms: a theocratic kingdom and a spiritual one.

Once we make the same distinctions, we can understand how the church as an institution and individual Christians fit into and solve the problem of wars and the military.

This section is the most important in the series.

B. Transition from OT to NT

To analyze the New Testament properly, it is imperative to understand the Old Testament. The later sacred text grows organically out of the older one, but also transforms some main themes. This revered ancient source teaches a theocracy, merging religion and politics. The Law of Moses was thundered from on high, shaking Mt. Sinai and echoing across the Middle East and eventually around the world.

The plan was for the ancient Hebrews, the people of God, to separate themselves from surrounding kingdoms and their pagan religions, and to worship the true and living God, following carefully prescribed laws. These laws were designed to guide them towards righteousness.

Further, God permitted ancient Israel to wage war on pagan inhabitants who were living in a small and specific land called Canaan, later renamed Israel. (He did not command his people to wage wars of worldwide conquests.) The Israelites alternated between success and failure in their wars. But this bedrock principle can be learned from these admittedly severe decrees: God is not opposed, in principle, to warfare, if necessary.

However, the people were unable or unwilling to follow God’s decrees, except a remnant. So God ordained a new path of following his righteousness, the gift of the Spirit. The prophet Joel predicted that God will pour out his Spirit on all people. (Joel 2:28-29)

Should the wars in the Old Testament be transferred forward to the ministry of Jesus and the church? If so, how? Would Jesus carry on the earthly theocratic kingdom established by God in ancient Israel? What about to secular governments? Should they wield the sword, when necessary, despite what pacifists may say?

C. A New Path

Jesus rose above his culture and trail-blazed a new path. In his teachings and pronouncements, he divides the kingdom of Caesar from the kingdom of God. Though the phrases “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God” are used over a hundred times in the four Gospels, we look at only a sample that put the kingdom in action.

Further, Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:18-44). As noted, he had predicted his own death, and resolutely set out for Jerusalem, in order to accomplish his mission to die a righteous death and then be bodily resurrected by God himself (Luke 9:51).

Once there in Jerusalem, the hostility of the Jewish leadership heats up against him. It is in this context that the teachers of the law and the chief priests keep a close watch on him to catch him in committing treason against Rome or in breaking the law – both Roman and Jewish – so they could arrest him and turn him over to “the power and authority of the governor” (Luke 20:20). Some leaders ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Apparently, they saw him as a political revolutionary who opposed Roman occupation. Would he endorse the taxation of his fellow Jews for the benefit of unclean Gentiles? He replied with famous words that are often quoted, though people may not know the exact reference and context. He speaks first in this passage.

The distinction between the kingdom of Caesar and the kingdom of God is clear. If Caesar asks for taxes, then keep your focus on the kingdom of God, but pay them. Incidentally, he even called a tax collector to become one of his disciples (Matt. 9:9) and befriended them and other sinners (Luke 5:29-32).

Finally, during his arrest, Jesus said to Pontius Pilate, a Roman authority:

Jesus says that establishing an earthly kingdom would necessarily involve fighting for it. However, Jesus was not setting up an earthly kingdom, so armed conflict was unnecessary.

Upon Jesus’ reply, Pilate exclaims that Jesus is a king. But Jesus spiritualizes the description of a king. Pilate speaks first in the following verse:

At the birth of Jesus, the wise men had called him “king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2). In John 18:37 he says that the purpose of his birth – as a king – is to testify to the truth. That means his kingdom is heavenly and nonmaterial. He leads by the power of truth alone, not by worldly pomp and glory, followed by a mighty military.

Thus, Jesus lifts his vision, and that of his disciples and ours, to a heavenly kingdom. He separated off an earthly and theocratic kingdom – albeit established by God in ancient Israel – from a spiritual kingdom about to be established beyond the borders of Israel to the farthest parts of the globe, wherever the gospel of the kingdom is preached. He rose above his culture. In his ministry and actions he never carried a sword or raised a militia to attack opponents, for he intended only to fight spiritual beings and diseases, and to clarify the best possible image of God in kingdom theology.

If Jesus were to reestablish another religious-political theocracy in a small land, it would not have succeeded, for God ordained something new that relates to all peoples. Joel 2:28-29 prophesies, and Peter the lead Apostle applies the prophecy to the birth of the Church in Acts 2.

Jesus did not reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel as if he were some sort of militaristic Son of David or in any other earthly way, though David was regarded as the most powerful and righteous king in Israel’s history. In Matt. 22:41-46 Jesus corrects the popular belief about the Son of David, saying that he is the Lord of David.

E. Rise above the culture

Still another example of his teaching the disciples to rise above their culture: In Luke 9:52-56, Jesus and his disciples were on their way to Jerusalem and went through Samaria. Normally Jews went around the area in their pilgrimage to the capital because the Samaritans were considered half-breeds of ancient Assyrians and Israelites many centuries before, and their religion was irregular. He told the disciples to go on ahead and get things ready. But the Samaritans rejected them because they were on their way to Jerusalem.

James and John, two brothers and part of Jesus’ inner core, wanted to call down fire from heaven on Samaritans, reminiscent of Elijah who called down fire on the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:38), to retaliate. Jesus rebuked the two men. He intended to go on a new path, a higher way.

Finally, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus told his disciples:

These verses overturn the popular idea everywhere that we should hate our enemy. Rather, we should pray for those who persecute us, not retaliate or attack them proportionately. This is the kingdom message.

F. Spiritual warfare only

If calling down fire from heaven, forming small and secret militias, hating one’s enemy, and exercising religious violence was not the way of the kingdom, then what was? How does it work itself out down here on earth?

Those questions bring us to the ministry and teaching of Jesus. As noted, he waged only spiritual warfare, not a military one.

Three examples of his spiritual warfare represent other passages in the Gospels.

1.. Demonic begins

First, one of the striking features of the Gospels is the presence of demonic beings that attack hapless people. The Gospels take them seriously, and so does Jesus (and so should we). He waged spiritual warfare against demons, wherever he went. After the great test (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), many passages describe his confrontation with them (Matt. 12:28 and 43; Mark 1:23-26, 5:2, 7:25, 9:25-26; Luke 4:33, 8:29 and 55, 9:42, 11:24, and 13:11).

2. War against sickness

Next, he waged spiritual warfare against sickness. This passage, representing other summaries, encapsulates in a few words the healing ministry of Jesus in Israel:

Finally, he waged spiritual warfare against false and incomplete ideas by teaching true and full ones. In the Sermon on the Mount he explains what the kingdom of God really is. It is the “new thing” prophesied by Isaiah (42:9, 43:19, and 48:6). After he finished the long discourse, the people respond thus:

These and many other passages in the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus is waging spiritual warfare, not a military one. He is about to call his church to do the same. He raises its vision higher than conquering earthly kingdoms and regions.

G. Summary

The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are not different. The same God who purified the small and specific land of Canaan through Joshua and his successors by military warfare is now purifying the whole world through Jesus (his Hebrew name is Joshua) and his disciples by spiritual warfare, that is, only by preaching the gospel and only by praying, not by hitting the stubborn with swords.

Jesus in effect hands the sword over to the state.

However, an objector may ask: separating off the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar is all well and good for the “heavenly minded,” but what about us here on earth? Wars and conflicts erupt. How do we handle them? What about the verses in the New Testament that talk about the sword? Or is the New Testament so spiritual that we should retreat from the world, not to mention from conflicts?

These are excellent questions, reflecting earth-bound realities. And these questions will be answered, below.

II. Jesus and the Sword

A. Brief intro.

We can burrow into the topic by asking and (hopefully) answering these questions:

According to the Gospels, is it possible to be honored by Jesus and other Gospel figures and be a weapon-carrying soldier or law enforcement officer, at the same time?

Do the Gospels approve of soldiers and officers of the State? Do the Gospels condemn the military?

Did Jesus say to use the sword against one’s own family?

Were individual members of the early Jesus movement, which soon evolved into the church, permitted to carry swords for self-defense?

Do the Gospels encourage the church as an institution to form militias and armies to wage war against its enemies or stamp out heresies?

We shall see that he hands the sword over to the state. So he was not a pacifist if the sword is used rightly. But he was a pacifist for his kingdom community. No armed Christian militias.

B. John the Baptist and Soldiers

According to the New Testament, John the Baptist, coming in the spirit of Elijah, was the forerunner of Christ. John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. One day, during the short life of John the Baptist – short because Herod the tetrarch beheaded him (Matt. 14:1-12 and Mark 6:14-29) – some soldiers, likely Jews serving the government in Jerusalem, traveled out to the Jordan River to see him. While they were listening, he told a large crowd that they must bring forth fruit (good character and actions) worthy of repentance, not just get wet at their baptism (Luke 3:8). After different classes of people ask what fruit they must produce, the soldiers ask a pertinent question about their own careers.

It seems, then, that these soldiers were deeper than curiosity seekers. They asked about repentance. It is important to note what John says and does not say. He tells them to follow after justice. Apparently, it was common knowledge that soldiers generally used their power and authority to intimidate people and extort money. He also tells them to be content with their wages; logically, this implies that they may remain in the military as soldiers. That is what he said. But what he does not say is that they should quit the army. The silence is significant. John never denounced them as soldiers, exactly at the moment when the fiery preacher could have done so.

One of the requirements of their repentance did not involve walking away from their career. They could repent of their sins and belong to the military. They did not have to repent for carrying weapons or belonging to the military. This also implies, historically, that they could use their weapons, if necessary.

C. The state’s unjust use of the sword

However, sometimes rulers in the Roman empire and at other times in history, even today, act unjustly. John was beheaded by Herod the tetrarch because the prophet had denounced the petty king’s marriage as unlawful (Leviticus 18:16). Herod had married his brother’s wife while the brother was still alive. In anger towards John, Herodias, the wife in question, asked for John’s head, and Herod granted it – reluctantly because the people regarded John as a prophet and Herod himself may have been interested in the ascetic’s teaching (Matt. 14:1-12). John did not die because he had swung a sword at Herod or raised a militia against him. This is a case in which a nonviolent, innocent, and righteous preacher was wrongly executed for telling the truth. He was a true martyr, the first one in the Gospels and Acts.

D. Jesus and a centurion

Centurions in Israel were mostly recruited from outside Galilee, not necessarily Rome or Italy, but from such regions as Lebanon and Syria. Centurions were the backbone of the army, keeping the peace and issuing executive orders. They commanded a lot of power. What happens when a centurion and Jesus meet? Matt. 8:5-13 reads:

We can learn many lessons from this verse, but this one is the most relevant to this post.

Jesus honors the centurion’s request and heals his servant. Next, he praises the centurion to high heaven for his insight, using superlative language: “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (v. 10), not as great as the gentile commander’s faith. What does Jesus not say or do? He does not denounce the centurion as a military servant of Rome. He never says, “Leave the army, for it is corrupt and intrinsically evil! If you don’t, I’ll never heal your servant!” As a moral example and teacher, if he wanted to point out behavior and practices that harm the people doing them, then he would have done so. But he did not.

E. The sword in Matthew 10:34

The verse says:

The historical context is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the “lost sheep of Israel,” not yet to the gentiles (Matt. 10:1-42), who will be reached after the resurrection (Matt. 28:16-20). It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. He predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city. It is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this Jesus movement, so they resist it. These cultural facts explain the literary context, which shows division among family members.

The literary context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of “sword” in Matt. 10:34.

The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word “sword,” and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may “split” it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6).

It is a sound interpretive method to let Scripture clarify Scripture. Luke 12:51-53 reveals the meaning of the key verse and metaphorical sword in Matt. 10:34.

In this passage, the sword represents division (v. 51), not a physical weapon. It is only natural that Matthew, the traditional author of the most Jewish of the Gospels, would include a pericope (a unit or section) like Matthew 10:32-39. Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently.

Some interpreters believe that it is the new convert’s family who may wield the sword against him. That is a possible interpretation. But the new convert is not the one who picks up his sword and attacks his family.

Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone, and in Matthew 10:34 he does not order his followers to swing one either, in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. But a true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to be ready for a sword to be wielded against him that sever away all family ties. He may even have to take up his cross, as his family may “crucify” him – another metaphorical instrument for the disciples. Or the cross symbolizes his dying to self-will. Either way, he may have to suffer abandonment from his family, a division.

It is true that Jesus divides the world into two camps or kingdoms, those who follow him, and those who do not, those in the light, and those in the dark. However, he never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family. If people in the second camp do not convert, they will not be harassed with swords, even if they persecute believers.

F. Two swords in Luke 22:35-38

The Gospel of Luke mentions real swords at the time of Jesus’ arrest. Did he endorse and encourage violence in the Gospels, presumably a righteous violence? Did he call his original disciples to this? Did he order all of his disciples to buy swords? One verse may indicate that he did.

The historical context of this verse demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Isaiah 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem.

Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him for fear of the people. Then Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).

As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper. He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:17-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.

At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36. They are eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed. Luke 22:35-38 says:

Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? He says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around?

1.. No militarism

Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the militaristic use of the two real swords. What is it?

Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when they show him two, he says the two are enough. The obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus in John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, “No more of this!” and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51).

Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords. Were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities are in the process of arresting him: “Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?” The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (v. 54).

So the militaristic interpretation of Luke 22:36 that says the two swords were intended to be used will not work in the larger context.

Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect the apostles and Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Then what are the two swords for?

2. Isaiah’s prophecy and an unjust accusation

In contrast to the militaristic interpretation, another interpretation works smoothly in the context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords – no more than that – represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Verse 37 says: “It is written: ‘And he was numbered among the transgressors.’” By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like one, and even crucified like one. He was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough – to fulfill this prophecy.

Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (Matt. 26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51).

This contextual interpretation does not say that the two swords did not exist (Luke 22:38). They are not only symbols or metaphors, nor were they imaginary or invisible. They were real. Peter really did cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest with one of them (Matt. 26:50-51; Luke 22:49-51). But it would be misguided to build church doctrine on such a reaction in the heat of the moment, during Jesus’ arrest at night.

3. Self-defense?

The swords were not symbols or metaphors. They were real.

Jesus said to Peter in the Garden, “Put your sword back in its place,” meaning, back in its scabbard or holder or in Peter’s belt or another article of clothing. He never said to throw the sword away, off to the side at a distance.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that some disciples carried the two weapons after the crucifixion and burial when they lived in hostile territory, and continued carrying them even after the things got calmer.

And so it is possible to conclude that Jesus intended the use of the sword to be for self-defense. So if an interpreter want to go in this direction, he may do so. But this is different than forming a Christian militia.

G. Summary

Jesus teaches that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar are different and distinct. He did not purpose to reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7). The episodes with John the Baptist and the soldiers and Jesus and the centurion confirm the division between the government and the church. Neither John nor Jesus denounces the military.

Under the direction of a just government, the military has a place in the world. It uses the sword to bring justice when people go astray or to protect the innocent. The government may wage a just war with an army or impose the peace by law enforcement.

The sword in Matthew 10:34 was a metaphor for family division, as seen in the parallel passage in Luke 12:51. Jesus never intended a disciple to kill a stubborn family member with a sword.

The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there also confirm the separation between the state and the church. The events teach the apostles nonaggression. He said to Peter: “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). It is not the church’s mission, as an institution, to muster out a militia or army to bloody people with swords.

Yet, the two swords in Luke 22:36-37 were real, and it could be argued that they were used for self-defense of individuals while the disciples made their way back to Galilee and lived there for a time. Then they may have kept the swords as they moved back to Jerusalem and eventually scattered to the known world, preaching the gospel.

III. Application

A. Two kingdoms

You have come to know him better by understanding what his kingdom was like in regards to earthly matters.

Understanding the separate kingdoms of God and Caesar (the state) and the fact that Jesus never set out to rebuild the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7) is essential for grasping all of the verses in the New Testament about the sword. If we merge the two realms, we will witness religious atrocities that the church committed sometimes (not always) in its history; we will see the church raise an army or militia to attack sinners and nonconformists, as the militaristic church defines them.

B. Self-defense ≠ Christian militia

Self-defense for an individual is not the same as the church raising an army to stamp out heresies and nonbelievers. The church and the government are not the same. Rather, the church, by its nature and purpose, is commanded to exhort, teach, guide, and counsel the government about the ways of God. The church exists to save souls, teach believers, and help the needy in practical ways, not to bloody and kill people with swords.

So we must follow the New Testament teaching on the separate kingdoms of God and of Caesar. Then we will have clarity.

C. European Crusades

This point may seem out of place, but it is not. The comparison and blame on the church comes up often in relation to Islam.

We have to go far afield from the study to answer a concern about the European Crusades (note that I did not write “Christian Crusades”).

Islam had been waging jihad from just before Muhammad’s death in 632 and then for four hundred years before Pope Urban II called for the first Crusade in 1095. Muslims were hampering pilgrimage routes. It is easy to believe that he kidnapped many men, women, and children and sold them into slavery. The women and children were kept for sex.

Check out this post at this website:

5 Slavery in the Quran, Traditions, and Classical Sharia Law

However, the pope did not obey Scripture when he called the first Crusade. He should have kept church and state separate. He should have asked the kings of Europe and the emperors, both of Europe and the Byzantine empire, to fight the battles. (And the same with the Eastern patriarch, who the equivalent to the pope.)

But I don’t like to impose modern perspectives on the people of the Medieval Age. They did the best they could with the limited light they had.

The main point is that we should recognize that Islam was the aggressor for four hundred years, not the church.

RELATED

2 The Early Church Was Not Pacifist

3 Are Christians Permitted to Fight Persecution?

MORE ARTICLES

The Truth about Islamic Jihad and Imperialism: A Timeline

The West’s Struggle with Islam

Islamic Jihad v. European Crusades

Matthew 10:34 Contrasted with Quran 9:123