"He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." ... And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."" Luke 22:36, 38
Modern professing Christians, especially American Christians, like to point to this single verse and argue that Jesus was giving them permission for self-defense or defense of country. Their ignorance could not be more obvious and blatant. The early Christians—who lived closest to the language and events—did not interpret it this way.
Jesus explains the reason for the sword in the very next verse (v.37), which modern readers frequently skip:
"For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
Jesus was not arming a militia; He was ensuring that the group looked like "transgressors" (brigands or revolutionaries) to the Roman and Temple authorities. This provided the legal pretext for His arrest as a state criminal, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12.
When the disciples produced two swords, Jesus said, "It is enough." Obviously, two swords for eleven men are militarily useless for defense against a Roman cohort. This is tactical absurdity. "It is enough" was a common Jewish idiom used to end a conversation where listeners had misunderstood the point (similar to saying, "Enough of this!").
"The Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us which is assigned to an unlawful action." —Tertullian, On Idolatry, 19
"If any one... brings up the command about the sword, let him know that it is to be understood spiritually... for if the disciples had been meant to use the sword, two would not have been enough for so many." —Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus, 8:73 (Paraphrased summary of his position on the metaphorical 'Sword of the Spirit')
"The Lord said 'It is enough,' not because two swords would suffice for defense... but as if to say, 'Since you are so slow to understand, I will speak of this no more.'" —Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Sermon 147
The passage above serves as a prophetic warning of the coming "time of the sword" (persecution). Jesus reminded them of their previous mission (Luke 10), where they went out without bags or sandals and lacked nothing. Now, He warns them that the "peace" of His physical presence is ending and they are entering an era of extreme hostility where the world will treat them as outlaws.
The disciple frequently took Jesus literally. When Peter actually used one of those "two swords" a few hours later to cut off Malchus' ear, Jesus immediately rebuked him: "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matt. 26:52). The modern interpretation just looks silly when contradicted by later events. The consensus of the first 300 years of Christianity was that the "sword" in Luke 22 was a tool for the fulfillment of Jesus' sacrifice, and that its actual use by a disciple was the final act of violence Jesus healed before His death.
So what is the overwhelming testimony of the first three centuries, of those closest to Jesus' teachings? Before we get to those, let us look at some of the statements made by their critics and opponents, which serve as historical proof that Christians were widely known for their refusal to fight. Observe:
Celsus was the first great intellectual opponent of Christianity. In his work The True Word, he argues that the Christian refusal to serve in the military is a threat to civilization itself.
"If everyone were to do the same as you [Christians], there would be nothing to prevent the king [the Emperor] from being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians." —Celsus, Cited in Origen, Against Celsus, 8.68
"Help the king with all your might, and labor with him in the maintenance of justice, and fight for him; and if he requires it, fight under him, or lead an army along with him." —Celsus, Celsus’s direct appeal to Christians to stop being pacifists, cited in Against Celsus, 8.73
Porphyry was a Neoplatonist who attacked the Christians for following what he saw as the "weak" and "unmanly" teachings of Jesus, specifically regarding the refusal to retaliate.
"A man who follows such a teacher [Jesus]... who says 'If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other also,' is not fit to be a citizen of a great empire. Such teachings destroy the laws of the state and the courage of its defenders." —Porphyry, Fragments of 'Against the Christians' (Paraphrased from historical reconstructions)
During the trial of the martyr Maximilian (who refused the military draft), the Roman official Dion tried to argue that being a soldier was compatible with being a Christian, but he ultimately condemned Maximilian for his "disobedient" refusal to carry a weapon.
Dion: "In the sacred retinue of our lords... there are Christian soldiers and they serve."
Maximilian: "They know what is fitting for them. But I am a Christian, and I cannot do evil."
Dion: "What evil do they do who serve?"
Maximilian: "You know what they do."
—The Acts of Maximilian (The official Roman court record of the execution)During the trial of Tarachus, the Governor expressed frustration that a former soldier would choose to become a "civilian" (pacifist) because of his faith.
Maximus: "Do not tell me of your God, but tell me if you will serve as a soldier... I will have you tortured until you abandon this madness."
Tarachus: "I was a soldier, and I was born a Roman; but because I am a Christian, I have chosen to be a civilian."
—Acts of Tarachus, Probus, and AndronicusThis is a dialogue between a Pagan (Caecilius) and a Christian (Octavius). The Pagan opponent mocks the Christians for their physical passivity and lack of military spirit.
Caecilius (The Opponent): "Look at you! You are a people who lurk in darkness and shun the light, silent in public, but garrulous in corners... You do not attend the games, you have no interest in public honors, and you shrink from the military service."
—Octavius, 8-12Just before the era of Constantine, the Emperor Galerius issued an edict of toleration. Even in this legal document, the "opponents" of Christianity admit that the Christians were refusing to follow the "ancient laws" of the Roman state, which included the defense of the empire.
"Since we saw that they [the Christians] would neither give due honor to the gods nor yet worship their own God... we thought that we should extend our pardon."
—Eusebius, Church History, 8.17 (Reflecting the state's recognition of the Christian 'counter-culture' that refused state-mandated violence).