Quote
Pilgrim said:

I can't decide what it is Henry is saying! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> At times, it appears that he seems to indicate that the disciples were to carry BOTH a physical sword as protection AND to be armed with the "Sword of the Spirit", i.e., the Word of God. But he also appears to be saying that the disciples didn't need a physical sword. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

If I understand him correctly that's exactly what he's saying. First he makes a reference to a physical sword to protect against robbers and assassins (making reference to Paul's experience in 2 Cor. 11:26). I think we all agree on this.

Matthew Henry is quilty as charged of spiritualizing the text by bringing to the table something more than Luke had drafted into this particular verse when he makes mention of the Sword of the Spirit. But even though Luke doesn't seem to have that in mind here a true disciple must arm himself with the Word of God to do battle against the kingdom of darkness just like Jesus did when he was in hand-to-hand combat with the evil one (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). It may not be intended here by Luke but it is not untrue.

The final idea in Henry's comments sugests if we fight a spiritual battle we may not need the physical swords. So he goes on to point out that the Lord will provide and protect. His comments are good but unfortunately not restricted to the verses in Luke 22.

Just my thoughts. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />


Wes

When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts