JESUS AND THE VIOLENCE

Lk 22:36-38: "Lord," they said, "there are precisely two swords here." He said, "Enough is enough!"

"A passage from the Gospel is used by some to argue that Jesus was able to justify the use of the sword, and therefore of all military weapons. This is the famous episode of his arrest on the Mount of Olives. After Judas' kiss, "seeing what was going to happen, those around Jesus said to him, 'Lord, shall we strike the sword?' (Lk 22:49). And without waiting for his answer, "One of them [John is the only one to specify that it is Simon Peter] struck the servant of the High Priest and took away his right ear" (Lk 22:49-50), which is perhaps not evidence of great dexterity.

Certainly, Jesus' immediate and clear reaction is to refuse this use of violence: "Put your sword in its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Mt 26:51. The generalization of the subject deserves to be emphasized) or "Put your sword back to the sheath" (Jn 18:10). Then he hastens, in Luke alone, to heal the servant of the High Priest by touching his ear (Lk 22:51). But the question remains: why did one of the apostles carry a sword that evening (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Jn 18:10)? Was it a habit? The sword, however, is not, a priori, part of the equipment of the perfect disciple of Jesus (Mt 10:9; Mk 6:8; Lk 9:3)." [1]

Jesus would have evolved in his conceptions...

François Vaillant [2] gives an explanation that I find too psychological to fit into the exegetical approaches of our evangelists. After quoting Jesus' answer: "Enough is enough!", he comments: "Nothing is clearer! Jesus is about to defend himself with weapons. Let's admit that this disturbs some of our preconceived ideas. But before we are indignant, we should ask ourselves if we are not all like Jesus when we are confronted with implacable injustice, intolerable violence. Isn't our first reaction then to want to respond by violent means? »

/.../ Jesus' answer, "Enough is enough!" about the two swords, is perfectly understandable in his mouth. Jesus is a Jew. He belongs to a people who once practiced many holy wars to defend themselves. But the Hebrews fought their wars differently from other peoples. The two essential traits are that each time they have made sure to put their trust in the Lord rather than in their own strength, and that they have not always sought the numerical superiority of fighters and weapons to defeat the adversary.

He concluded: "The hypothesis we make is therefore simple. Feeling that he will be arrested and then murdered, Jesus, at first, sees the possibility of defending himself with arms, with the help of his disciples. Two swords are enough. This is in line with the Jewish mindset that once commanded to defend itself without seeking the numerical superiority of weapons. Let us note in passing that a sword is not the weapon of the poor as can be the stick. A sword in Jesus' day would be equivalent to a machine gun for us in wartime. »

A second major objection to this interpretation of Father Vaillant: the whole preaching of Jesus presents an unfailing non-violence, even prescribing to us the love of enemies. That he has questioned his own deep convictions is implausible.

The swords of the upper room.

Let us return to the explanation, less simple but more biblical, given by Christian Roux [3]. His interpretation is also taken up in a very recent book, published in the collection "Sortir de la Violence" [4]. I summarize Christian Roux's article, quoting it as much as possible verbatim.

Only Luke puts forward an explanation with the scene that takes place in the upper room just before the departure to the Mount of Olives: Jesus enjoins his disciples to take swords: He tells them: "... he who has no sword (μάχαιραν), let him sell his coat to buy one" (Lk 22:36).

Should we think that by answering: "Lord, here are two swords" (22:38) the disciples create a misunderstanding, Jesus speaking to them of the swords metaphorically? [5] . It is not clear why, if Jesus had wanted to speak of swords metaphorically, he would have taken the risk of accepting that the apostles take swords to the Garden of Olives and then reproach them for using them, when he knows his imminent arrest manu militari . Moreover, the transition from metaphor to reality for the apostles takes place in the upper chamber while the narrative places the misunderstanding in the Garden of Olives when the disciple does not wait for his master's answer to his question: "Will we strike with the sword?" (Lk 22:49).

Should we then think that Jesus wanted to take swords to defend himself? (editor's note: Vaillant's thesis, above). The very limited number of swords carried away by the apostles makes this thesis difficult and gives them rather a symbolic aspect. These two swords, which Jesus considers sufficient for what he wants to do (22:38), were not enough, however, and whatever happens, to properly defend a dozen men threatened with arrest manu militari (the troop sent to arrest Jesus is certainly not a Roman cohort of 600 men - as Vaillant p.102 advances - (there is only one for all jerusalem) but a detachment of the Jewish guards of the Temple) . Jesus said it to the disciple who struck the servant of the High Priest: "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, who would immediately put at my disposal more than twelve legions (a Roman legion has 6,000 infantry and 120 horsemen) of angels?" (Mt 26:53) and Pilate: "If my kingship were of this world, my guards would have fought so that I would not be handed over to the Jews" (Jn 18:36). But it is not two men, sword in hand, who can claim to serve as effective guards (Still, the apostles seem to have easily found the swords requested: but, at the time, many people armed themselves with sword, because of the insecurity of the times. So there could be some in the house that welcomed Jesus and his disciples.) .

The episode is understandable only in Luc, who is the only one to give us the ins and outs.

1. Jesus wanted to pretend to be a criminal in order to fulfill the Scriptures.

Indeed, Jesus begins by recalling the conditions in which he sent his disciples, insisting precisely on their voluntarily stripped panoply: "without purse, no bag, no sandals". Then he urges them to take purses and swords. And he gives them the reason for this surprising request: "for I declare to you, the text of Scripture must be fulfilled in me: He has been counted among the criminals (άνόμων, literally: lawless, outlawed)" (Lk 22:37; Isaiah 53:12). And, in fact, what concerns me will be accomplished" - "Lord," they said, "here are two swords." He said, "Enough is enough." And Jesus to welcome the soldiers who come to arrest him by saying: "As for a bandit you have come with swords and sticks" (Lk 22:52). Those who come to arrest him consider him dangerous, since they have armed themselves accordingly (editor's note. Judas was probably still present when Jesus alluded to the swords and may have warned them). The guards have therefore entered into Jesus' will to be taken for a bandit, even if this will is contrary to everything he has experienced so far, as he quickly points out to them: "Every day I was in the Temple (therefore unarmed) to teach and you did not stop me" (Lk 22:53; Mk 14:49; Mt 26:55). "All this happened in order for the writings of the prophets to be fulfilled," matthew comments (Mt 26:56); "It is so that the Scriptures may be fulfilled," notes Mark (Mk 14:49). What Luke had already explained during the scene in the upper room: "for the text of Scripture must be fulfilled in me" (Lk 22:37).

2. Jesus' goal: to denounce violence.

Jesus mounts a symbolic "mime", in the manner of Jeremiah and Ezekiel [6]. Indeed, given the circumstances, these two swords represent a ridiculous defense. Moreover, the question is not there, and the allusion to the legions of angels shows it well. He mounts a mime in the manner of the prophets, to better reveal the real and murderous violence of his opponents, forced to show their true face on this occasion. "It is now your time, it is the power of darkness" (Lk 22:53), he said before the guards seized him.

On the one hand the satanic violence of his opponents, who will go so far as to put him on the cross, and on the other the unarmed non-violent (you really consider me a dangerous guy with my two swords in front of your armed pack?).

3. His non-violent conduct is flawless.

He immediately repairs the damage caused by one of his disciples. This untimely intervention by Pierre highlights the misunderstanding. Peter was so convinced that the two swords were there to defend himself, that he did not even wait for Jesus' answer to his question: "Will we strike the sword?" (Lk 22:49). Jesus puts him back in his place and clears up the misunderstanding. He says clearly, "Put your sword in its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Mt 26:52).

"Jesus' will to be counted among the criminals will be completed on the cross, the place of apparent victory of violence, which becomes by the resurrection the place of the revelation of satanic nature and the defeat of violence" [7].

At first glance, the presence of these two swords in the hands of Jesus' disciples is incongruous. Thanks to Luke we understand that Jesus wanted to take swords "not to justify violence but to denounce it" [8].

Prof. Jimi ZACKA, PhD

J. Wings

[1] Christian Roux,  Jésus, les glaives et le Royaume, in Cahiers de la Réconciliation, n° 2-1992, pp. 28-31.

[2] François Vaillant,  La non-violence dans l'Evangile, Les Editions Ouvrières, 1991, pp.100-102

[3] Christian Roux, o.c.

[4] Michel Callewaert,  A subversive love. Jesus, the Church and Self-Defense, Ed Fidelity/Cerf, 2011, pp. 83-85.

[5] Commentary of Father Boismard (P. Benoit and M.-E Boismard, Synopse des quatre Evangiles, tome deux, Cerf, 1972, pp. 388-389: "The mention of the sword to be bought must probably be understood in the metaphorical sense... The apostles' response proves that they did not understand the metaphorical meaning of Jesus' word."

[6] For example: Jeremiah 19,1-15 and Ezekiel 4,1-3; 4,4-8; 4,9-17; 5,1-17. Or the marriage of Hosea (1,2-5 and 3,1-5) Or the purification of the temple by Jesus himself.

[7] o.c. p. 30

[8] o.c. p. 31