Recently the Unite the Kingdom movement led by Tommy Robinson had another rally in central London. It was interesting to see some of the responses and reporting from across the pond in the US, especially from the Christian right. There seemed to be a theme of cheering on an uprising against the establishment, a fledgling revolution. Here are a couple of sample comments on Not the Bee’s Facebook page.
Now this is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, a lot for liberal/left wing commentary on Christian Nationalism has tended to see this as a movement originating from the American right and there has been a nervousness that this might be linked to potential civil unrest or worst. Now, whenever Christian Nationalists here in the UK have spoken, they have been keen to downplay such links and fears. Further, whilst some have talked about potential civil war, they have been careful not to suggest that Christians should join in or take up arms. There is however, on the fringe at least murmurings, State-side and so the question is “how can Christians justify this? Well, when pushed, it seems that they can only come up with one Scripture, Luke 22:36.
36 “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! 37 For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’[d] Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.”
The context of course for that verse is the Last Supper. Jesus talking to his disciples reminds them about when he had commissioned them to go out as the twelve and the seventy two, on that occasion, he had told them to go with nothing, trusting God to provide for them by bringing them into contact with people of peace. However, in v36, he says that this time, they are to take a purse with them and they should buy a sword if able.
Is this a literal instruction. Was Jesus preparing his disciples to do battle, to resist attack? Well, we are given a few clues that suggest not. First, when in v38, the disciples say “we’ve got two swords”, he responds “that’s enough”. Commentators seems to take this to have the sense of “enough now”, Jesus shuts the conversation down. If that, then the implication was that he wasn’t really interested in a discussion about weapons. However, if he was saying “that’s sufficient”, then those swords would not be sufficient for a real fight but might discourage opportunist troublemakers.
Then, we have what happened when Jesus was arrested. Peter attempted to defend Jesus by slicing off the High Priest’s servant’s ear with one of the swords. Jesus rebuked Peter and healed the man. It doesn’t seem that Jesus expected the two swords to be used in anger.
Thirdly, we have the record of the early church both in Acts and in early church history. What we see is a people completely disinterested in seeking to resist oppression and defend themselves against persecution, let alone rise up against the ruling authorities and overthrow them. Indeed, Paul in Ephesians 6 makes clear that our battle is not with flesh and blood and in Romans 8 puts the focus on us putting to death our own sin.
It seems that Jesus was using vivid language to make a point. The specific circumstances those disciples would face over the next few days would be very different to what they had experienced up until now. Jesus had already sent them out as sheep amongst wolves but the opposition would now be so intense that they would find it near impossible to find people of peace to provide food and shelter for them. Even their own leader was about to be struck down. It would seem like they were having to fend for themselves. Of course the reality was that they were never really left alone.
That one verse though does not provide instruction for potential insurrectionists today. It is not Jesus’ blessing for revolution and violence. Instead, we are told how to further his kingdom. We are to make disciples, baptise them and teach them to obey Jesus.
Faithroots 