The reason I ask is because I have heard that a pastor takes a pistol in the pulpit with him.
ESV - 36 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.
Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
A very timely inquiry during these fraught with danger times (perilous times and places). I humbly submit for your consideration that the Words spoken by the Lord to His now friends mean what they say. I will grant that some words may have a deeper spiritual meaning ("SOD" that which profits). (Ezekiel 33:6; Matthew 16:3) Let's examine the scripture message closely for clues by using the Yiddish concept “Mishpachah," meaning the entire family network of relatives by blood or marriage and sometimes CLOSE FRIENDS: (Luke 22:36) "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Jesus is telling His now mishpachah friends to be prepared for what He knows will soon come upon them; remember the betrayal by Judas is operating in the background. Consider: if He was now in fact speaking spiritually that a sword meant the Word, why then would He instruct them to SELL their cloak (a temporal item) to now purchase “the spiritual” that was already freely given them at supper? The sword spoken of in this message is an item that was visible as we are told there were only two such items among his friends, who would go on to change the world. Addressing the fashionable yet dubious pious assertions or teaching of a scriptural non-violence peace and love Jesus appears to run counter to His earlier scripture: (Matthew 10:34) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:36) “and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ (Matthew 26:51-52; Luke 22:50) And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. Here the pseudo non-violence bias missed the Biblical and historical aspects. Jesus rebuked Peter for striking a working servant, not a direct threat and only doing what his master had requested of him. But the missed point is this: the servant's back was to the sword in Peter’s right hand to enable the clean cutting of only the right ear. We know this because it was the custom of the time shield in left and sword in right. Something not understood by many today, having rejected the knowledge of history (Hosea 4:6). Sometimes after adversarial experiences when all the dust has settled, there's a person that must have the last word or throw an emotional sucker punch (Isaiah 44:18). Bottom line: During the time of Jesus the custom was for a shepherd to place his flock in a cave or enclosure of sorts and then place himself at the gate or doorway.This is the pattern of protecting a flock from any harm during their sojourn while on a perilous landscape. I submit that it was average for any shepherd to lose up to half of his flock to various predators. Yet scripture informs us that the "GOOD SHEPHERD" tells the Father that He lost not one of those that were given to Him, something that was unheard of during His time on this little sphere. I am of the opinion that any good shepherd worth his salt will stand ready to place his own personal welfare, second to that of protecting his flock against any unpleasant imminent threat. Scripture informs us that to willingly lay down one’s life for another is the greatest display of love known. Thus they are more than worthy of your support, prayers and maybe even a coffee. Friend. (Nehemiah 4:23; Joel 3:10) "The occupation of the good soldier of Christ is war.” ~Charles Spurgeon In the Lord's freedom warrior on..........
I would say that Jesus was speaking from knowledge that Peter and at least one other apostle (as indicated by the apostles' response in Luke 22:38, and use of the plural during subsequent events in Gethsemane (Luke 22:49)) were in fact already carrying swords (although not at His instruction, command, or wish, as revealed by Jesus' saying that the two swords that the apostles referred to were enough (rather than recommending that each apostle have one), and His rebuke of the sword's use in Luke 22:51). Jesus was instead including His knowledge of the presence of the swords as part of His overall warning to the apostles (as He had said on other occasions, such as Matthew 10:25 and John 15:20) that they (as His followers) could expect to receive even worse treatment than had been directed at Him after He would no longer be with them, which was why they would need to take along worldly provisions such as money and supplies, rather than depending on the goodwill of others, and that that previous goodwill would even turn to outright hostility (which was the context for His comment -- involving, in my opinion, dramatic hyperbole for emphasis -- about swords, rather than a directive to the apostles to actually use them). (As Paul would later say, the only "sword" required by Christians -- as part of the "full armor" of God (Ephesians 6:13-17) -- is the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God).
Most commentaries I have read reject the interpretation that Jesus was telling the disciples to arm themselves - that notion would be difficult to reconcile with Jesus’ teachings of non-violence (Matt. 26:51,52). In Luke 22:36 on acquiring swords, Jesus was most likely talking about the Word of God, which is quick and sharp and powerful as a two-edged sword – metaphor used all through the Bible (Rev 1:16, 2:12, 2:16; 19:15; Heb 4:12; Eph 6:17). Jesus’ response to the disciples when they produce two swords “It is enough!” (Luke 22:38) cannot mean that two swords would be “enough” for the twelve for any kind of resistance against the Roman or Jewish authorities, so it is doubtful that Jesus meant that. “It is enough” was probably used as a rebuke for their lack of understanding. A similar situation we find in Matthew 16:5-9 where Jesus was trying to warn them not to be misled by the Pharisees’ teachings, while they were concerned that Jesus was talking about actual bread.
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.