And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
The two swords already in the disciples' hands were enough, so no more were to be bought and no general arming was commanded. They were allowed to remain only so that Jesus might be counted with lawbreakers in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy and give his enemies a pretext for arrest, not as permission to fight. Their true purpose was made plain when Peter's use of one brought rebuke and healing, proving they were never meant to defend Christ, his followers, or the gospel by force. Because his kingdom is not earthly, the sword of the Spirit is forever distinguished from the sword of the state, and the church must never use civil power to defend, spread, or punish in matters of faith. Those who claim both swords for the church teach that Christ committed spiritual and temporal authority to Peter and his successors, the spiritual to be wielded by the pope and the temporal by kings under his direction.
Setting and Purpose
The saying belongs to the night after the Passover supper when Jesus went with his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane, where he prayed in agony and was betrayed by Judas. That betrayal began the course to the house of Caiaphas, Peter's denial, the mock trial before the Sanhedrin, the visits to Pilate and Herod, the release of Barabbas, the condemnation to the cross, and the carrying of the cross to Calvary. It was the spring of A.D. 31, when Tiberius Caesar ruled the Roman Empire, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea.
The reply that it was enough ended the discussion because the disciples would not understand further teaching about the swords until they had lived through what followed. The two swords already in their hands were enough, so there was no need to buy more and no command for all to arm themselves. Their presence gave enemies a pretext to accuse and arrest him as one reckoned with transgressors and fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy that he would be counted among transgressors, though he was no transgressor. That provision was not permission to fight, for the sword represents human transgression and his kingdom is not earthly. Peter's use of a sword, followed by rebuke and healing of the wounded man, shows the swords were not for defending Jesus or resisting evil even in his defense, were not to be used in defense of the Gospel, and were not for disciples to defend themselves with physical weapons when persecuted for the truth, giving instruction for all time to put the sword away because those who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Christ Forbids the Sword
The two swords already in the disciples' hands were not meant to be used, but their presence gave enemies a pretext to accuse and arrest Jesus as one reckoned with transgressors, though he was no transgressor. Peter's use of one of them, followed by rebuke and the healing of the wounded man, shows the saying does not justify using weapons in God's work. They were not for defending Jesus nor for resisting evil even in his defense. Disciples are therefore not to defend themselves with physical weapons when persecuted for the truth, nor is the sword to be used in defense of the Gospel. The reply that two were enough was no command for all to arm themselves, but pointed to the immediate purpose their possession served in leading to his being counted among transgressors.
The saying recognizes two kinds of sword, the sword of the Spirit and the sword of the state. The sword stands for human transgression, and since his kingdom is not earthly his servants were not given permission to fight. The command to Peter not to use a physical sword to defend him shows the church must not use state power to defend or spread Christianity, or to punish those who reject it. The disciples were permitted to carry the two swords so that Peter, who had already declared himself ready to follow Jesus even to prison and death, would have occasion to use one in defending him. His violence at the arrest and the rebuke that followed made the lesson against the sword especially clear and memorable for Christians in every generation. That instruction was given for all time, that the sword is to be put away because those who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Rome's Temporal Power Claim
Rome reads the two swords as civil and spiritual power, both held by the church, and makes that reading the ground of its claim over civil government. The two are the two kinds of power belonging to the church, the spiritual and the temporal together. Christ committed both kinds of authority to Peter and to his successors, so the pope is said to hold spiritual and temporal power in the two swords.
The spiritual sword is wielded by the pope himself, while the temporal sword is exercised by kings and soldiers on behalf of the church and under its direction. That secular exercise remains subject to the pope's will and to spiritual power, with the monarch's power subject to the church. By this image the church claims to hold both spiritual and temporal power, and those who allow it only spiritual authority are branded as heretics. The order to put the sword away, rather than a declaration that two were too many, leaves Peter's possession of the temporal sword intact, with the priest holding spiritual power and the monarch exercising secular power subject to the church.
The two swords already in the disciples' hands were enough, so no more were to be bought and no general arming was commanded. They were allowed to remain only so that Jesus might be counted with lawbreakers in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy and give his enemies a pretext for arrest, not as permission to fight. Their true purpose was made plain when Peter's use of one brought rebuke and healing, proving they were never meant to defend Christ, his followers, or the gospel by force. Because his kingdom is not earthly, the sword of the Spirit is forever distinguished from the sword of the state, and the church must never use civil power to defend, spread, or punish in matters of faith. Those who claim both swords for the church teach that Christ committed spiritual and temporal authority to Peter and his successors, the spiritual to be wielded by the pope and the temporal by kings under his direction.
Setting and Purpose
The saying belongs to the night after the Passover supper when Jesus went with his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane, where he prayed in agony and was betrayed by Judas. That betrayal began the course to the house of Caiaphas, Peter's denial, the mock trial before the Sanhedrin, the visits to Pilate and Herod, the release of Barabbas, the condemnation to the cross, and the carrying of the cross to Calvary. It was the spring of A.D. 31, when Tiberius Caesar ruled the Roman Empire, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea.
The reply that it was enough ended the discussion because the disciples would not understand further teaching about the swords until they had lived through what followed. The two swords already in their hands were enough, so there was no need to buy more and no command for all to arm themselves. Their presence gave enemies a pretext to accuse and arrest him as one reckoned with transgressors and fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy that he would be counted among transgressors, though he was no transgressor. That provision was not permission to fight, for the sword represents human transgression and his kingdom is not earthly. Peter's use of a sword, followed by rebuke and healing of the wounded man, shows the swords were not for defending Jesus or resisting evil even in his defense, were not to be used in defense of the Gospel, and were not for disciples to defend themselves with physical weapons when persecuted for the truth, giving instruction for all time to put the sword away because those who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Christ Forbids the Sword
The two swords already in the disciples' hands were not meant to be used, but their presence gave enemies a pretext to accuse and arrest Jesus as one reckoned with transgressors, though he was no transgressor. Peter's use of one of them, followed by rebuke and the healing of the wounded man, shows the saying does not justify using weapons in God's work. They were not for defending Jesus nor for resisting evil even in his defense. Disciples are therefore not to defend themselves with physical weapons when persecuted for the truth, nor is the sword to be used in defense of the Gospel. The reply that two were enough was no command for all to arm themselves, but pointed to the immediate purpose their possession served in leading to his being counted among transgressors.
The saying recognizes two kinds of sword, the sword of the Spirit and the sword of the state. The sword stands for human transgression, and since his kingdom is not earthly his servants were not given permission to fight. The command to Peter not to use a physical sword to defend him shows the church must not use state power to defend or spread Christianity, or to punish those who reject it. The disciples were permitted to carry the two swords so that Peter, who had already declared himself ready to follow Jesus even to prison and death, would have occasion to use one in defending him. His violence at the arrest and the rebuke that followed made the lesson against the sword especially clear and memorable for Christians in every generation. That instruction was given for all time, that the sword is to be put away because those who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Rome's Temporal Power Claim
Rome reads the two swords as civil and spiritual power, both held by the church, and makes that reading the ground of its claim over civil government. The two are the two kinds of power belonging to the church, the spiritual and the temporal together. Christ committed both kinds of authority to Peter and to his successors, so the pope is said to hold spiritual and temporal power in the two swords.
The spiritual sword is wielded by the pope himself, while the temporal sword is exercised by kings and soldiers on behalf of the church and under its direction. That secular exercise remains subject to the pope's will and to spiritual power, with the monarch's power subject to the church. By this image the church claims to hold both spiritual and temporal power, and those who allow it only spiritual authority are branded as heretics. The order to put the sword away, rather than a declaration that two were too many, leaves Peter's possession of the temporal sword intact, with the priest holding spiritual power and the monarch exercising secular power subject to the church.