26 replies to this topic

[dannyboy52]

Funny how all these "christians" take things so literally  ................. I read a harry potter book once and dont believe the author meant all us muggles to be the second best race on the planet ......... yawnnnnn , just sayin

[braveone2u]

Beckys_Mom, on 05 February 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Does Jesus preach to others to use violence?

Luke 22:36
He said to them, "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"
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword".

When reading the above quotes from the bible - Luke 22.36 and Matthew 10 34, Does Jesus really mean for them to use violence with swords?  Or is there more to the verses, like context?

Hi Beckys_Mom,

Jesus did not preach violence. And yes, I've just read the interesting Exergensis; nevertheless, I don't agree.

Luke 22:36 is strictly about Judas, the betrayer (taking the blood money). Betraying someone is like plunging a sword into another's heart.

Luke 22:38, the disciples misunderstood Jesus, just like being clueless about Judas' part. Therefore, Jesus replied, "It is enough." (It's time for me to pray now and get on with fulfilling the prophecy.)

Matthew 10:34 is about the sword of truth. Truth is a double-edged sword. It could either divide, or unite.

Peace.

Edited by braveone2u, 06 February 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[AquilaChrysaetos]

No... He's loving beyond anyone could be able to comprehend... That is why he has such wrath toward the things that cause our own harm. It's like a parent that is so angry at their children for playing with guns, he is angry because he loves us so very much. No he does not promote violence, he promotes love. He only wants awareness of that which causes harm...

[braveone2u]

BTW, about Luke 22:36, it is actually "his/he/him," not "you" and "your." I'm using King James.

[Jinxdom]

No, not violence but conflict to change for the better, within yourself and courage to change others for the better.

[Frank Merton]

There are passages where Jesus says to turn the other cheek, and others where he says he came to divide families against each other.  It appears different people made up different stories about him.

[Jinxdom]

Should you not stop your brother if he is a raging lunatic who goes around murdering people who did you wrong? I would in a heart beat.  Trying to get people to believe in the same thing. Not the greater good but in being good in general.

[Rlyeh]

HavocWing, on 06 February 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

He also said those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Coming from a carpenter who died after being nailed to wood.

[Beckys_Mom]

braveone2u, on 06 February 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Hi Beckys_Mom,

Jesus did not preach violence. And yes, I've just read the interesting Exergensis; nevertheless, I don't agree.

Luke 22:36 is strictly about Judas, the betrayer (taking the blood money). Betraying someone is like plunging a sword into another's heart.

Luke 22:38, the disciples misunderstood Jesus, just like being clueless about Judas' part. Therefore, Jesus replied, "It is enough." (It's time for me to pray now and get on with fulfilling the prophecy.)

Matthew 10:34 is about the sword of truth. Truth is a double-edged sword. It could either divide, or unite.

Peace.

I already have that covered.. Read post 6 -> http://www.unexplain...pic=242416&st=0

[Bluefinger]

Beckys_Mom, on 05 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Take a look at this below..

   A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36

James M. Arlandson

Did Jesus endorse and encourage violence in the Gospels, presumably a righteous kind of violence? Did he call his original disciples to this? Did he order all of his disciples to buy swords, really? One verse may indicate that he did.
And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

Cited in isolation, the verse suggests that swords and violence are a possibility. It seems as if all of the disciples should go out and buy one each. After the death and burial of Jesus, they would have to face the world alone without him, so they thought.
However, what happens to the apparent meaning of the verse when it is not read in isolation, but in context? Did Jesus really wield a sword and want all of the disciples to buy one each?
Exegesis of Luke 22:36
The historical context of Luke 22:36 demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfil his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Is. 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem.

Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Then Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).

As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper (most likely the Seder). He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:17-20)......... However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.
At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36 (bold print). He is eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed.
Luke 22:35-38 says:

35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

The textual context reveals at least two truths.
First, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below.

Second, he says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Is. 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained, below. Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the violent use of the swords. What is it?
The interpretation of the verses can follow either a strictly physical direction in which swords must be used, or a non-physical one in which swords must not be used, during Jesus’ last hours. The surest and clearest direction is the non-literal one, but first we analyze why the literal one will not fit into Luke 22:34-38 and into the passage about the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-53).
Violent use of the swords
Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when they show him two, Jesus says the two are enough.
The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for two reasons.
First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus according to John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords.

Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities are in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (v. 54).
So the physical interpretation of Luke 22:36 (the two swords were intended to be used) will not work in the larger context. Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane.

The contextual meaning of the swords
In contrast to the literal interpretation of using swords physically, the following interpretation works smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words.
When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware.

However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.
Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’" (Luke 22:37).By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial, and execution were based on false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43).... What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfil this prophecy.

Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he was not permitted to stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51)

The third and final non literal interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach non-physical  universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords.
This interpretation of clarification is supported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As seen in this article on Matt. 10:34, in context he does not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up non-physically ...... And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of "sword" as non literal  in the two parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why would he not shift slightly the meaning of "sword" in 22:36-38?  http://www.answering.../luke_22_36.htm

Good posts BM!

I think that the main purpose of having the swords was to fulfill Scripture.

His statement about not bringing peace, but a sword is pointing toward Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans, as was often suggested in Jesus' parables and sometimes plainly in the book of Matthew.

The Jews expected that the Messiah would deliver them from the Romans.  Jesus let His disciples know that Jesus wanted His disciples to know that the social structure in Judea would break down, leading families to betray one another.  Luke 12:51 uses the same language, but not about the disciples being persecuted by about the destruction of the Jewish Nation.

Flavius Josephus accurately details how much great betrayal happened in Jerusalem, especially when John of Gischala entered the city.  Vespasian surrounded the city later and offered to allow the Jewish pilgrims to go to Jerusalem for the Passover.  He wouldn't let them leave though.  It was his method of starving the city of resources and water to force it to surrender sooner.  Those trapped starved to death.  As they lied on the ground, they begged the seditious to kill them, but they wouldn't.  Jesus warned His disciples not to participate in the Jewish Cause or follow any false messiahs because Jerusalem was condemned to be destroyed.  Jesus didn't bring peace to the Jewish Nation.  He brought the sword.

For His disciples, He told them to flee.

[WoIverine]

Sometimes you've just gotta kick somebody's ass, and ask for forgiveness after, especially if they start it.

[AquilaChrysaetos]

Frank Merton, on 06 February 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

There are passages where Jesus says to turn the other cheek, and others where he says he came to divide families against each other.  It appears different people made up different stories about him.

What he means by that is for instance, one person in a family will chose to follow him and the rest will not. That isn't a promotion of violence, it's a statement of truth. Christianity has caused great partiality among people in the same households, yet has in no way represented any sort of physical violence.