Quote
Boanerges said:
So your saying that Christ was talking about really arming oneself with real weapons? Most of the commentators that I have looked at (which are few I must admit) tend to say that he was speaking in metaphorical terms here. He wasn't really telling them to grab swords.
I believe that yes indeed, the Lord Christ was telling His disciples to arm themselves with a sword for the purpose of protection. Hendriksen is one who opts to "allegorize/spiritualize" the word sword and as a reason for doing so refers to Jesus' rebuke of Peter in Lk 22:49-51; Matt 26:51 and John 18:10, 11. However, this is one of those rare instances where I must disagree with Mr. Hendriksen on two counts:

1) There is no legitimate hermeneutical reason to take "purse" and "wallet(ASV)/script(KJV)" literally but spiritualize "sword". The Lord says that the disciples are to sell their outer garment if necessary to buy a sword. This would make absolutely no sense if the "sword" was not a physical item. And lastly, in verse 38, it says, "Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.". Clearly, the disciples understood "sword" to be a literal weapon and the Lord acknowledges their understanding and affirms that having two among them was sufficient.

2) The texts referenced where Peter is rebuked for drawing his sword and cutting off the soldier's ear do not support the view that "sword" in Luke 22:36 cannot be literal. The rebuke given was not in regard to Peter having and/or using his sword, but rather because Peter's zeal to protect Jesus from being arrested was one which would prevent Him from the cross to which He was destined. Interestingly, Peter had previously been rebuked for the same reason, cf. Matt 16:21-23; Mk 8:31-33.

There is no implication that the use of the sword was to be in an offensive manner but rather it was to be used as a defensive weapon.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]