Luke 22 and Swords - Commentary Help

[Venator Veritatis]

Good morning. Yesterday, after service, our Lord's day discussion around the lunch table revolved around government and a Christians role, or lack thereof, in participating and advocating for it. After venturing into the realm of sphere sovereignty and government overreach one of the decons, who is a retired pastor, made an offhand comment on how Luke 22:36 justifies carrying a gun and self defense.

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. (Luke 22:36, ESV)

This topic and scripture has come up before, and while I do believe a biblical case can be made to carry arms and promote self defense, I don't see it in this passage. I presented 10-11 commentaries that all state that the sword Christ is taking about is allegorical/figurative.

Calvin
Beza
Trapp
Annotationes by John Downname
M. Poole
M. Henry
J. Gill
J. Wesley
Alexander Maclaren
JC Ryle
William Hendrickson

I was summarily dismissed as not having exegeted the passage, and that all these men were stated to be "not just wrong, but dead wrong". And that was the end of any sort of exploration of that topic.

Can anyone help me understand the opposing view and maybe direct me to some reformed sources that support my deacons position? Not trying to be contentious, I genuinely want to understand.

 

[jwright82]

Good morning. Yesterday, after service, our Lord's day discussion around the lunch table revolved around government and a Christians role, or lack thereof, in participating and advocating for it. After venturing into the realm of sphere sovereignty and government overreach one of the decons, who is a retired pastor, made an offhand comment on how Luke 22:36 justifies carrying a gun and self defense.

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. (Luke 22:36, ESV)

This topic and scripture has come up before, and while I do believe a biblical case can be made to carry arms and promote self defense, I don't see it in this passage. I presented 10-11 commentaries that all state that the sword Christ is taking about is allegorical/figurative.

Calvin
Beza
Trapp
Annotationes by John Downname
M. Poole
M. Henry
J. Gill
J. Wesley
Alexander Maclaren
JC Ryle
William Hendrickson

I was summarily dismissed as not having exegeted the passage, and that all these men were stated to be "not just wrong, but dead wrong". And that was the end of any sort of exploration of that topic.

Can anyone help me understand the opposing view and maybe direct me to some reformed sources that support my deacons position? Not trying to be contentious, I genuinely want to understand.

I don't know of any resources but I am at a loss for why it would be metaphorical? Is the moneybag and knapsack metaphorical? Also metaphorical of what? I'm just not seeing it, what did those authors say about my questions (if anything)?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I don't know of any resources but I am at a loss for why it would be metaphorical? Is the moneybag and knapsack metaphorical? Also metaphorical of what? I'm just not seeing it, what did those authors say about my questions (if anything)?

William Hendrickson says that in view of the context and the fact that Christ used figurative language often, it's reasonable to assume he was being figurative.

Especially since Christ didn't say "only two swords? I told each of you to get a sword " I'm paraphrasing the much more eloquent language of several of those men.

"That he did not mean literal swords is plain from the answer that He gave His apostles, who produced the formidable amount of 2" - Alexander Maclaren

Ryle takes "purse, script and sword" to all be figurative. They are emblematic of the hard times to come.

Essentially they all state, in some fashion,that the sword is symbolic of the oppression and persecution to come, but then say that the kingdom of God is not defended or advanced through carnal means. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, they are the sword of the Spirit.

"Here the Captain of our salvation cries 'Arm! Arm!' and under the name and notion of corporal weapons He intends all manner of spiritual preparations..." - Trapp

 

[jwright82]

William Hendrickson says that in view of the context and the fact that Christ used figurative language often, it's reasonable to assume he was being figurative.

Especially since Christ didn't say "only two swords? I told each of you to get a sword " I'm paraphrasing the much more eloquent language of several of those men.

"That he did not mean literal swords is plain from the answer that He gave His apostles, who produced the formidable amount of 2" - Alexander Maclaren

Ryle takes "purse, script and sword" to all be figurative. They are emblematic of the hard times to come.

Essentially they all state, in some fashion,that the sword is symbolic of the oppression and persecution to come, but then say that the kingdom of God is not defended or advanced through carnal means. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, they are the sword of the Spirit.

"Here the Captain of our salvation cries 'Arm! Arm!' and under the name and notion of corporal weapons He intends all manner of spiritual preparations..." - Trapp

Ok that makes more sense to me now. I like Ryle's the best, that makes the most sense to me. I also, even if I were to argue for a non-metaphorical interpretation (which I'm not), don't see it as a political command to own and carry guns.
That's what confused me, was framing of the problem (which is on me and how I read it). I read the problem as my deacon said that "Christ commands us to have the right to own and bear arms".
Then I read your response as "no that text doesn't say that because it's metaphorical and here's 10 different Reformed writers who agree".
So my initial response was like "so what if it's metaphorical or not, what does that have to do with the right to bear arms"?
So sorry if I misunderstood the question, but I personally liked Ryle's explanation because he lumped all three together as one metaphor for a hard life. Was my reading of the question wrong or what?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Ok that makes more sense to me now. I like Ryle's the best, that makes the most sense to me. I also, even if I were to argue for a non-metaphorical interpretation (which I'm not), don't see it as a political command to own and carry guns.
That's what confused me, was framing of the problem (which is on me and how I read it). I read the problem as my deacon said that "Christ commands us to have the right to own and bear arms".
Then I read your response as "no that text doesn't say that because it's metaphorical and here's 10 different Reformed writers who agree".
So my initial response was like "so what if it's metaphorical or not, what does that have to do with the right to bear arms"?
So sorry if I misunderstood the question, but I personally liked Ryle's explanation because he lumped all three together as one metaphor for a hard life. Was my reading of the question wrong or what?

Perhaps my writing was not as clear as I could have been? But you essentially got the gist of what I was trying to get at.

The Luke passage was being pressed into the service of defending the right (and command if it's a literal interpretation?) to bear and use literal arms in defense. I, in light of the study I had done, could not see it applying to that situation.

Thanks for clarifying my post. I'm sorry if it wasn't super clear what I was looking for.

 

[jwright82]

Perhaps my writing was not as clear as I could have been? But you essentially got the gist of what I was trying to get at.

The Luke passage was being pressed into the service of defending the right (and command if it's a literal interpretation?) to bear and use literal arms in defense. I, in light of the study I had done, could not see it applying to that situation.

Thanks for clarifying my post. I'm sorry if it wasn't super clear what I was looking for.

No it was clear to me what was going on, no need to apologize. I just get a little confused about the American tendency (I never checked if you're American or not, just assumed) to proof text something like the right to bear arms.
Certainly we have the right to self-defense and in our country that is one of the reasons for our right (which I fully believe in) to bear arms. But a solid case can be made for it by natural law in my opinion.
So extrapolating our right to bear arms from our biblical right to self-defense makes sense but the particular political arrangement we have is explainable by natural law (with the bible being agnostic about our particular political arrangement).
Ryle's explanation is the one I would personally press because it takes all three objects as one metaphor. That way each object isn't a metaphor for a different thing, that would seem like "reading into the text" and stretching it beyond what is clearly intended.
But raising the question of should evangelist's carry guns into the mission field is a good question to ponder. My pastor and several members of my congregation are "packing heat" every Sunday.
It's not something they brag about, I only know from my old boss because he's good friends with the pastor.
Maybe just raising the question of "do you need a specific command from our Lord (in the absence of any prohibition) to have the right to bear arms?" That may diffuse the discussion a bit.
Anyway I hope I was helpful.
[automerge]1765218327[/automerge]
Are you from Brownsville Texas? Because I lived in Abeline Texas when I was in the Air Force. Texas and guns are a marriage made in heaven, just like Florida. Loved it there, San Antonio not as much because I was in basic training (I really don't like pushups and situps to be honest).
Best of luck with your discussion. You'll have to let me know how it goes.