Some secular historians and critics try to frame Jesus as a militant revolutionary or Zealot. To support this, they point to Luke 22:36-38, where Jesus tells His followers to buy swords, and Mark 14:47, where a disciple uses a sword to strike the High Priest's servant during Jesus' arrest.

This interpretation severely distorts the context. The passage in Luke refers to only two swords among the entire group of disciples. During the arrest, the only resistance was Peter slicing off a servant's ear, which was immediately followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away. Such an isolated instance of spontaneous defense in a melee is scarcely indicative of belonging to an organized military resistance movement.

Furthermore, the 'swords' in question were not the longswords typical of military combat. They were most likely Jewish short swords or daggers—standard implements carried for protection against wild animals and robbers on the roads. Even the peace-loving Essenes carried them, and they were permitted on the Sabbath as part of one's adornment. These daggers would have been utterly useless against the armed Temple police, much less against Roman soldiers. If Jesus had been the founder of an insurgent political group, the Romans would have rounded up and executed His followers as they did with every other recorded revolutionary.

Some suggest that Matthew 26:52 is a strong indictment against war, placing it against verses where Jesus appears to advocate fighting...

> Matt. 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

It should first be noted that this verse is in the form of proverbial wisdom, and is therefore not an absolute advocation of pacifism, as not every single person who has drawn a sword has died by the same means. Hence there is neither contradiction of nor relevance to other verses cited as contradictory. Moreover, that this is not intended as a statement in pacifism is seen in that the saying also carries an eschatological overtone that may be seen through this parallel, from an Aramaic Targum on Isaiah 50:11:

> Behold, all you that kindle a fire, that take the sword: go, fall into the fire you have kindled, and fall by sword you have taken.

Expressed as this is, it means that "God's will is being fulfilled and nothing can hinder it." It is not strictly about whether one literally dies by the sword.

The idiom "living by the sword" denotes a life of aggressive violence. Having a sword does not necessitate such a life, as it could be used for protection. In the Lukan passage, Jesus addresses the disciples to buy a sword if they lacked one. One can reasonably suppose that Jesus is using a figure of speech, for when the disciples took His words in the wrong fashion, producing but two swords, Jesus tells them that the two swords are sufficient. If Jesus were telling them to live by the sword, it would be unreasonable to think that a scant two swords would suffice for a group of at least eleven men.

In the Matthean passage, Jesus is clear about not promulgating the Christian cause by using force—He corrects the disciples' mistaken notion that the cause would be furthered by preventing His arrest.

What about verses cited in opposition?

> Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

It is clear that "sword" here is a figurative reference to personal division, not to literal weaponry. Consider the verses previous to these to see who Jesus indicates will be prone to violence (Matthew 10:16-33).

Far from advocating violence, Jesus is predicting that Christians will become the victims of violence: it is the persecutors who wield the sword and become the foes.

> Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Is this an advocation of war? Some think Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble, noting that Peter scuffled with the Temple guards. That is an overstated case: the passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords, and the so-called "scuffle" consisted of Peter slicing off a servant's ear, followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away. Raymond Brown has rightly admonished those who read military intent into this passage: "...such an isolated instance of spontaneous defense that could have occurred in a melee of any period is scarcely indicative of belonging to a resistance movement."

The swords in question were not medieval longswords. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword—a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one's adornment. This weapon would not be of much use against the Temple guards, much less against armed Roman soldiers.

> John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Within the context of John 14, this is clearly "peace" in a spiritual sense and has nothing to do with physical warfare. The word "peace" here is eirene, and can mean peace, prosperity, quietness, or rest, as in Matt. 10:13. Obviously this is not "peace" in the sense of the opposite of fighting and war.