This may not fully answer the question but may provide at least some understanding.

In Luke 22:25, 36, Jesus is preparing His disciples for what would happen at His trials, crucifixion and events that would follow. Up to this point in their preaching ministry, they had only gone to Jewish towns and would normally expect hospitality. After the Jesus, resurrection, they would travel much more widely (Acts 1:7, 8) and would often expect quite hostile reception. Thus, they should provide for themselves. The Cambridge commentary suggests:

"But now" This was an intimation of their totally changed relation to the world. There was no spontaneous hospitality, no peaceful acceptance, no honoured security, to be looked for now.

Commentators are almost unanimous in making similar statements as above, eg, Barnes, Expositors Greek, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Bengel, etc.

The "problem" of the "sword" has caused much debate and there are, broadly, three suggestions about how to understand it. Regardless of which of the following is preferred, it was clear that Jesus did not intend that it be used offensively (Luke 22:50, 51).

1. The "sword" is to be understood figuratively, "swrod of the spirit" as per Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12. This is preferred by Ellicott and the Cambridge Commentary, Matthew Henry, Geneva Bible, Gill.

2. The "sword" was intended only for self defense and nothing else as per Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, and indicated the great dangers the disciples would face.

3. The "sword", μάχαιρα (machaira) is used in LXX to translate מַאֲכָלוֹת (maakeleth) in Gen 22:6, 10, the knife used for either preparing a sacrifice or preparing food.

I am unsure which of these to select as correct as all appear to contain some credibility. #3 is weak because μάχαιρα (machaira) is also used to translate other offensive Hebrew weapons as well. The first interpretation, while attractive, is weakened by the observation that all elements in the sentence are literal except "sword" which strains credibility. This leaves the second as the most consistent but still unattractive interpretation. See Matt 10:34.

This may not fully answer the question but may provide at least some understanding.

In Luke 22:25, 36, Jesus is preparing His disciples for what would happen at His trials, crucifixion and events that would follow. Up to this point in their preaching ministry, they had only gone to Jewish towns and would normally expect hospitality. After the Jesus, resurrection, they would travel much more widely (Acts 1:7, 8) and would often expect quite hostile reception. Thus, they should provide for themselves. The Cambridge commentary suggests:

"But now" This was an intimation of their totally changed relation to the world. There was no spontaneous hospitality, no peaceful acceptance, no honoured security, to be looked for now.

Commentators are almost unanimous in making similar statements as above, eg, Barnes, Expositors Greek, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Bengel, etc.

The "problem" of the "sword" has caused much debate and there are, broadly, three suggestions about how to understand it. Regardless of which of the following is preferred, it was clear that Jesus did not intend that it be used offensively (Luke 22:50, 51).

1. The "sword" is to be understood figuratively, "sword of the spirit" as per Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12. This is preferred by Ellicott and the Cambridge Commentary, Matthew Henry, Geneva Bible, Gill.

2. The "sword" was intended only for self defense and nothing else as per Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, and indicated the great dangers the disciples would face.

3. The "sword", μάχαιρα (machaira) is used in LXX to translate מַאֲכָלוֹת (maakeleth) in Gen 22:6, 10, the knife used for either preparing a sacrifice or preparing food.

I am unsure which of these to select as correct as all appear to contain some credibility. #3 is weak because μάχαιρα (machaira) is also used to translate other offensive Hebrew weapons as well. The first interpretation, while attractive, is weakened by the observation that all elements in the sentence are literal except "sword" which strains credibility. This leaves the second as the most consistent but still unattractive interpretation. See Matt 10:34.

This may not fully answer the question but may provide at least some understanding.

In Luke 22:25, 36, Jesus is preparing His disciples for what would happen at His trials, crucifixion and events that would follow. Up to this point in their preaching ministry, they had only gone to Jewish towns and would normally expect hospitality. After the Jesus, resurrection, they would travel much more widely (Acts 1:7, 8) and would often expect quite hostile reception. Thus, they should provide for themselves. The Cambridge commentary suggests:

"But now" This was an intimation of their totally changed relation to the world. There was no spontaneous hospitality, no peaceful acceptance, no honoured security, to be looked for now.

Commentators are almost unanimous in making similar statements as above, eg, Barnes, Expositors Greek, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Bengel, etc.

The "problem" of the "sword" has caused much debate and there are, broadly, three suggestions about how to understand it. Regardless of which of the following is preferred, it was clear that Jesus did not intend that it be used offensively (Luke 22:50, 51).

1. The "sword" is to be understood figuratively, "swrod of the spirit" as per Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12. This is preferred by Ellicott and the Cambridge Commentary, Matthew Henry, Geneva Bible, Gill.

2. The "sword" was intended only for self defense and nothing else as per Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, and indicated the great dangers the disciples would face.

3. The "sword", μάχαιρα (machaira) is used in LXX to translate מַאֲכָלוֹת (maakeleth) in Gen 22:6, 10, the knife used for either preparing a sacrifice or preparing food.

I am unsure which of these to select as correct as all appear to contain some credibility. #3 is weak because μάχαιρα (machaira) is also used to translate other offensive Hebrew weapons as well. The first interpretation, while attractive, is weakened by the observation that all elements in the sentence are literal except "sword" which strains credibility. This leaves the second as the most consistent but still unattractive interpretation.

This may not fully answer the question but may provide at least some understanding.

In Luke 22:25, 36, Jesus is preparing His disciples for what would happen at His trials, crucifixion and events that would follow. Up to this point in their preaching ministry, they had only gone to Jewish towns and would normally expect hospitality. After the Jesus, resurrection, they would travel much more widely (Acts 1:7, 8) and would often expect quite hostile reception. Thus, they should provide for themselves. The Cambridge commentary suggests:

"But now" This was an intimation of their totally changed relation to the world. There was no spontaneous hospitality, no peaceful acceptance, no honoured security, to be looked for now.

Commentators are almost unanimous in making similar statements as above, eg, Barnes, Expositors Greek, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Bengel, etc.

The "problem" of the "sword" has caused much debate and there are, broadly, three suggestions about how to understand it. Regardless of which of the following is preferred, it was clear that Jesus did not intend that it be used offensively (Luke 22:50, 51).

1. The "sword" is to be understood figuratively, "swrod of the spirit" as per Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12. This is preferred by Ellicott and the Cambridge Commentary, Matthew Henry, Geneva Bible, Gill.

2. The "sword" was intended only for self defense and nothing else as per Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, and indicated the great dangers the disciples would face.

3. The "sword", μάχαιρα (machaira) is used in LXX to translate מַאֲכָלוֹת (maakeleth) in Gen 22:6, 10, the knife used for either preparing a sacrifice or preparing food.

I am unsure which of these to select as correct as all appear to contain some credibility. #3 is weak because μάχαιρα (machaira) is also used to translate other offensive Hebrew weapons as well. The first interpretation, while attractive, is weakened by the observation that all elements in the sentence are literal except "sword" which strains credibility. This leaves the second as the most consistent but still unattractive interpretation. See Matt 10:34.