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.