Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
jeff of jesus grace grew on me real quick. I miss him. He may have flown the coop. But while waiting for him to possibly come back I thought I'd chime in.
Matt. 10:34 is not specific enough to be determinant. I doubt that Jesus meant that families were going to be having sword fights against each other. That's not the author's point. I won't extend my exegete of that section of Matthew here. v. 37-39 I think makes the author's point.
Instead I'd like to bring up the other mention of swords, brought up in Luke :
Luk 22:35-38 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
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.
For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors," but two swords wasn't enough for a insurrection against the Roman occupation of the holy land.
Remember what happened to John the Baptist. And then, Jesus was called the King of the Jews, that was an open provocation to the Roman occupiers.
Was the Jesus movement, headed up by the 12, a bunch of insurrectionists against the Roman occupiers? Or was Jesus an apocalypticist, soon expecting a supernatural intervention?
I posit the latter. The two swords support the apocalypticist view. They certainly don't indicate a insurrectionist view. Jesus wasn't making military preparations.
In the least, just the two swords doesn't indicate that Jesus was advocating for violence. Or not enough to call Jesus a violent man.
Well, not until Revelation. There, Jesus forgets all about love your enemies. And he has a sword coming out of his mouth. |
If Matthew 10:34 is ambiguous, Luke 22:35-38 is enigmatic. The numerous conflicting explanations Christians give to the passage is evidence of its lack of clear meaning. The story appears only in the Gospel of Luke. It likely says more about the life and times of the author than it does about Jesus.
According to Mark, when Jesus sent the disciples out, "he charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics." According to Matthew, Jesus directed them saying "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food. " According to Luke 9, Jesus said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece."
The passage in Luke 22 suggests that by the time of that gospel was written, missionaries were no longer holding to Jesus' direction to "take nothing..." and the author felt the need to justify the change in practice to include carrying a weapon. If so, it may reveal a swerve from Jesus' simple faith in sufficiency of the Father's protection by the time Luke was written.