Theology Detail
Applied to: Self-defense and arms
Luke 22:36 records Christ instructing His disciples, on the eve of His arrest, to acquire swords—a statement that has been debated throughout church history regarding its bearing on the legitimacy of self-defense.
“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.” (Luke 22:36)
The setting is the Last Supper, on the night before Christ’s crucifixion. Jesus is preparing His disciples for the new situation they will face after His departure. Earlier, He had sent them out without purse, scrip, or shoes and they lacked nothing (Luke 22:35; cf. Luke 9:3, 10:4). But now the circumstances are changing. Jesus tells them to take a purse, a bag, and a sword.
Verse 37 gives the reason: “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.” Christ quotes Isaiah 53:12. He is about to be arrested, tried, and executed as a criminal. The period of miraculous provision and divine protection that characterized His public ministry is giving way to a period of hostility, persecution, and danger for His followers.
When the disciples respond, “Lord, behold, here are two swords,” Jesus replies, “It is enough” (v. 38). This response has been interpreted in several ways: as indicating that two swords are sufficient for the group’s protection, as a signal that His instruction was not meant to arm them for battle, or as an expression of closure to the conversation.
This verse requires careful handling because of the subsequent events. In the garden of Gethsemane, when Peter draws his sword and strikes the servant of the high priest, Jesus rebukes him: “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11). Matthew 26:52 adds: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
This creates an apparent tension: Jesus tells them to buy swords, then rebukes Peter for using one. The Reformed interpretive tradition has generally resolved this by distinguishing between:
Christ did not rebuke Peter for owning a sword. He rebuked him for using it to prevent what God had ordained. The two situations are morally distinct.
Christ’s instruction to His disciples acknowledges that in a fallen and hostile world, the possession of means of self-defense is a legitimate and prudent provision.
This is not a command to take up arms in the advancement of the kingdom. Christ’s kingdom does not advance by the sword (John 18:36). But it does acknowledge that His followers will face real, physical dangers, and that preparing for self-defense is not sinful. The instruction to “sell his garment, and buy one” suggests urgency: self-defense is important enough to warrant real sacrifice.
The Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 135) lists among the duties of the sixth commandment “all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves and others.” The possession of means of defense falls naturally under this duty.
Luke 22:36 is the most direct statement in the New Testament in which Christ acknowledges the legitimacy of His followers possessing weapons for their protection. Applied to the question of self-defense and arms:
The connection to arms policy is a prudential application. Luke 22:36 does not address government regulation of weapons. It does establish that the private possession of means of defense has Christ’s own acknowledgment as a legitimate provision.
This verse must not be pressed beyond what it can bear. It does not teach that Christians should be armed at all times, that the right to arms is unlimited, or that armed resistance to civil authority is justified.
Christ’s rebuke of Peter in the garden shows that the possession of a weapon does not entail the right to use it in every circumstance. The sword is for defense, not for advancing the kingdom, not for personal vengeance, and not for resisting God’s providential purposes.
The verse also does not settle modern debates about the types of weapons that should be available to private citizens, the appropriate scope of regulation, or the balance between individual defense and public safety. It establishes a principle—the legitimacy of defensive arms—but it does not provide a weapons policy.
Some interpreters read Jesus’ instruction as entirely symbolic, meant only to fulfill the Isaiah 53:12 quotation. This reading has some force, but it does not explain why Jesus responded to the disciples’ literal swords with “It is enough” rather than correcting their misunderstanding. The most natural reading treats the instruction as both literal and limited: real swords for real dangers, but not a charter for militarism.
Luke 22:36 records Christ instructing His disciples to acquire swords as they prepared to face a hostile world without His immediate physical presence. In context, it acknowledges the legitimacy of possessing means of self-defense, while the garden rebuke of Peter shows that this right is not unlimited. Applied to the self-defense and arms discussion, it supports the principle that Christians may lawfully possess means of defense, while leaving the specifics of regulation and use to prudential wisdom governed by the whole counsel of Scripture. This is a prudential application grounded in a real dominical instruction, not a mere inference from silence.