The Terrible Swift Sword
Christian Theology and the Sacred Code of Chivalry
I ended my exploration of Julius Evola’s thought two weeks ago with the following conclusions:
The culture war cannot be won on a purely secular level. Spiritual forces are at work. Ignoring these forces seems to be a recipe for defeat.
Whatever spiritual or religious tradition the Right looks to for its support, that tradition must offer warriors a place within the sacred. Something like “muscular” Christianity, reimbued with the old virtues of chivalry, will be required.
American greatness cannot be restored just by passing the right set of rules or laws. Restoration will require great leadership from men of great character, a “virtuous elite,” possessed of what the Greeks dubbed arete and the Romans virtus.
It seems worthwhile to me to explore those conclusions a bit more, illuminating them with some interesting analysis drawn from philosophy, revelation, and theory.
Last week, we looked at virtus heroica, the quality that Evola, as well as Aristotle, Aquinas, and others thought was essential to just kingship. This week, we’ll look at whether Christianity offers warriors a place within the sacred. If Christian theology bores or offends you, skip this one; it’ll be a snoozer. On the other hand, if heresy sets your heart racing, put your Inquisitor robes on and enjoy!
The Swords of Christ
Throughout the Gospels, Jesus frequently refers to swords. I believe the key passages, presented in chronological order, are:
Matthew 10:34:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke 22:36-38:
36 [Jesus] then remarked, “But now, the one who has a money bag should take it with him, as well as a sack. And if you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and purchase one.
37 “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘He was numbered with the wicked.’ Indeed, everything written about me is being fulfilled.”
38 They said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” He said to them, “That is enough.”
And Matthew 26:52:
But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
What is going on in these passages? First, Jesus announces that he has come to bring the sword; then he tells his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy more swords; then he says the two swords they show him are sufficient; and then he tells them not use their swords to save him. The first two passages seem diametrically opposed to the last one. The third is simply confusing.
Now, Biblical interpretation is a difficult art. Theologians don’t even agree on how to interpret the Bible. Lexical-syntactical? Historico-grammatical? As Infogalactic dryly reports:
To illustrate the diversity of biblical interpretations, William Yarchin pictures a shelf full of religious books saying different things, but all claiming to be faithful interpretations of the Bible. Bernard Ramm observed that such diverse interpretations underlie the “doctrinal variations in Christendom.” A mid-19th century book on biblical interpretation observed that even those who believe the Bible to be “the word of God” hold “the most discordant views” about fundamental doctrines.”1
Indeed. Before we add to that full bookshelf, before we think to offer new interpretations of these passages, let’s consider what the learned theologians of the past have said.
Commentary on the Sword Passages: Ironic and Symbolic
Every modern Bible commentator who has written on these passages has held that they are very confusing. Starting from the presupposition that Christianity is a religion of peace and Jesus is the Prince of Peace, they conclude that the passages must not be interpreted literally, but rather ironically or symbolically.
For instance, in Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Barnes writes:
[In Matthew 10:34], Christ did not mean to say that the object of his coming was to produce discord and contention, for he was the Prince of Peace; but he means to say that such would be one of the effects of his coming…
There has been much difficulty in understanding why [in Luke 22:36] Jesus directed his disciples to arm themselves, as if it was his purpose to make a defense. It is certain that the spirit of his religion is against the use of the sword, and that it was not his purpose to defend himself against Judas…
This, then, is not to be considered as a specific, positive "command" to procure a sword, but an intimation that great dangers were before them; that their manner of life would be changed, and that they would need the provisions "appropriate to that kind of life." The "common" preparation for that manner of life consisted in money, provisions, and arms; and he foretells them of that manner of life by giving them directions commonly understood to be appropriate to it. It amounts, then, to a "prediction" that they would soon… go into scenes of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the necessity of money, provisions, and the means of defense…
The Galileans, it is said, often went armed… The reason was that the country was full of robbers and wild beasts, and it was necessary to carry, in their travels, some means of defense. [Luke 22:38 seems to indicate] that the disciples followed the customs of the country, and had with them some means of defense, though they had but two swords among the twelve…
[As for] “It is enough” - It is difficult to understand this. Some suppose that it is spoken "ironically;" as if he had said, "You are bravely armed indeed, with two swords among twelve men, and to meet such a host!" Others, that he meant to reprove them for understanding him "literally," as if he meant that they were then to procure swords for "immediate" battle. As if he had said, "This is absurd, or a perversion of my meaning. I did not intend this, but merely to foretell you of impending dangers after my death." It is to be observed that he did not say "the two swords are enough," but "it is enough;" perhaps meaning simply, enough has been said. Other matters press on, and you will yet understand what I mean…
[As for Matthew 26:52], the most satisfactory interpretation is that which regards it as a caution to Peter. Peter was rash. Alone he had attacked the whole band. Jesus told him that his unseasonable and imprudent defense might be the occasion of his own destruction. In doing it he would endanger his life, for they who took the sword perished by it. This was probably a proverb.
According to Barnes’ interpretation, then:
In Matthew 10:34 “the sword” symbolizes discord and contention, and the passage reads “I came not to bring peace, but discord.” Barnes immediately then re-writes this to assert that Jesus doesn’t mean to actually bring discord, but rather is offering a warning that discord will result of what he brings.
In Luke 22:36, Jesus is warning his disciples of the danger of the future, and advising them to acquire the money, provisions, and arms they will need. But in Luke 22:38, while the disciples are referring to the actual swords they carry about as proper means of self-defense in the wild country, Jesus is being sarcastic when he tells them that two swords are enough, because he was never talking about real swords at all.
In Matthew 26:52, Jesus is warning his disciple Peter not to be rash about using the sword he just told him to get… or not to get, since according to Barnes he was talking about literal swords in 22:36, but symbolic swords in 22:38.
Now, Barnes’ interpretation of Matthew 10:34 doesn’t make sense to me. The verse doesn’t say “I come to bring peace but my coming will have the side effect of causing discord.” It’s pretty specific: Jesus brings the sword, the sword doesn’t come along for the ride.
His interpretation of Luke 22:36 is more plausible to me. Bandits, beasts, and brigands were dangers for every traveler in the 1st Century AD, and it would be entirely reasonable for some members of a group to be armed. But if Barnes’ interpretation of 22:36 is correct, his interpretation of 22:38 cannot be correct. If two swords actually are enough to protect from the dangers of the road, then Jesus is not being ironic; and if they aren’t enough, and there really are bandits and beasts to be dealt with, then Jesus is misinforming his men.
Barnes’ interpretation of Matthew 26:52 is not unreasonable, but it leaves unanswered the question of why Jesus would advise his disciples to carry actual swords (which is Barnes’ interpretation of Luke 22:36) but also not to ever use them lest they die by them.
In Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Gill says:
[In Mathew 10:34], By the "sword" may be meant the Gospel, which is the means of dividing and separating the people of Christ from the men of the world.
These words of Christ [found in Luke 22:36] are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection…
[Luke 22:38’s words] "they are sufficient"… must be understood either ironically; yes, two swords, to be sure, are sufficient for eleven men, and against many and powerful enemies: or his meaning is, they were sufficient to answer his purpose, and be an emblem of what he designed by the sword: or this was a short way of speaking, suggesting their stupidity and ignorance: it is enough, it is very well, I perceive you do not understand my meaning, and I shall say no more at present.
[As for Matthew 26:52], “For all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword…” This is not to be understood of magistrates who bear not the sword in vain, are ministers of God for good, and revengers of evil works; but of private persons that use the sword, and that not in self-defence, but for private revenge; or engage in a quarrel, to which they are not called; and such generally perish, as Peter must have done, had it not been for the interposition of almighty power. Though this seems to be spoken not so much of Peter, and of the danger he exposed himself to, by taking and using the sword, and so to deter him from it, but rather of these his enemies: and as an argument to make and keep Peter easy and quiet, and exercise patience, since, in a little time, God would avenge himself of them; and that the Jews, who now made use of the sword of the Roman soldiers, would perish by the sword of the Romans, as in a few years after the whole nation did.
According to Gill’s interpretation, then:
In Matthew 10:34 “the sword” is meant symbolically to represent the Gospel, whose message will bring discord between believers and unbelievers in the near future.
In Luke 22:36, “the sword” is meant symbolically, as indicative of the danger they will face in the future, thought they are not actually able to defend against such dangers by swords. When the disciples produce actual swords and Jesus says “that is sufficient” in 22:38, he is being ironic or sarcastic, and more-or-less telling the disciples they’re stupid idiots who didn’t understand him.
In Matthew 26:52, “the sword” is meant symbolically of those who use violence for bad purposes, with Peter’s defense of Christ as one of those bad purposes.
On a verse-by-verse basis, Gill’s interpretations seem reasonable. But I find it unreasonable to assume that the same word has wildly different symbolism in similar contexts.
For instance, if Gill is right that “the sword” means the Gospel in Matthew 10:34, why doesn’t he apply the same exegesis to “the sword” in Matthew 26:52? “He who takes up the Gospel will die by the Gospel” would be a profound and meaningful statement by Jesus, who is shortly about to be crucified, to his disciples, all of whom were later martyred by the faith.
Finally, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges writes:
[In Matthew 10:34], the contrast is rather between union and division than between peace and war. The “sifting” of Christ causes division or perplexity, and conflict of opinion, both in the thoughts of the individual and between man and man… History shews that religion has been the great separating influence in the world.
Of course [Luke 22:36] was not meant to be taken with unintelligent literalness. It was in accordance with that kind metaphorical method of expression which our blessed Lord adopted that His words might never be forgotten. It was to warn them of days of hatred and opposition in which self-defence might become a daily necessity, though not aggression. To infer that the latter is implied has been one of the fatal errors which arise from attributing infallibility to wrong inferences from a superstitious letter-worship.
[Luke 22:38] was a last instance of the stolid literalism by which they had so often vexed our Lord… As though He could have been thinking of two miserable swords, such as poor Galilaean pilgrims took to defend themselves from wild beasts or robbers; and as though two would be of any use against a world in arms !
To [[Matthew 26:52] Christ added another reason for non-resistance, “The cup which my Father has given me shall I not drink it?” (John). By “take the sword” [he meant] against rightful authority. The truth of this saying was exemplified by the slaughter of nearly a million and a half of Jews, who “took the sword” against Rome a. d. 67–70.
The Cambridge interpretation is quite similar to Barnes’ and Gill’s:
In Matthew 10:34 “the sword” is an overall allegorical statement about the fact that Christianity will be divisive.
In Luke 22:36, “the sword” is meant symbolically, as indicative of the danger they will face in the future, which might necessitate self-defense. When the disciples produce actual swords and Jesus says “that is sufficient” in 22:38, he is being ironic or sarcastic. Two swords wouldn’t be useful at all.
In Matthew 26:52, “the sword” has a dual meaning of “resistance” and “aggression against rightful authority.” Jesus is telling his disciples that they should not aggress ever, nor resist rightful authority.
The Cambridge interpretation seems to me to combine the least coherent portions of Barnes and Gill. As with Gill, “the sword” means something different in every sentence. As with Barnes, the interpretation of Luke 22:36 doesn’t make sense in light of 22:38.
To keep this essay to a manageable length, I’ll stop with just those three, but I’ve read many others; these views represents the virtually unanimous interpretation of these passages. I am not persuaded that any of them are necessarily correct.
