Jesus came to bring war

[providence]

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". Luke 22:36

There is some difficulty interpreting this with the comments immediately after it Luke 22:35-38 ("two swords" "it is enough"), Luke 22:47-53 (use of one of the swords), and in Acts (no mention of the apostles being armed even in self defense during their travels, except figuratively in Ephesians 6:10-20). The quote is in direct contrast to the ways prescribed prior to the crucifiction of Jesus, in Matthew 10 ("9 Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food.", ESV). Matthew 10 was also where the swords symbolizing division is discussed.

 

[Drew]

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". Luke 22:36
​

Entering the Temple, Jesus drove out all who were buying and selling there, and overturned the money-changers' tables and the seats of the pigeon-dealers. Matthew 21:12
​

:o Sounds like violence to me.

First, let me deal with the "buy a sword" text, a text that has been misunderstood over the centuries:

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the use of force:

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. <SUP>37</SUP>"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." <SUP>38</SUP>They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to use force. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to use force.

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the legitimacy of using weapons”.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is saying the use of force is acceptable” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about the legitimate use of force, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to use force” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

 

[Drew]

Entering the Temple, Jesus drove out all who were buying and selling there, and overturned the money-changers' tables and the seats of the pigeon-dealers. Matthew 21:12
:o Sounds like violence to me.

I suggest that Jesus was making a "political" statement through his arguably "violent" actions. But it was certainly not intended to promote the concept that, in His kingdom, it is acceptable to solve problems through the use of force. That would contradict other things Jesus said.

Jesus was engaging in theater - using exaggerated acts of 'violence' to signify that God was about to judge the nation of Israel for her disobedience to her calling to be the light of the world.

One can no more use this event to defend the idea that Jesus support the use of force" than one can conclude that when someone burns a political leader in effigy, they are actually calling for the violent overthrow of that leader.

Jesus was all too aware of the symobollic message that his "cleansing of the temple" would sent. I am quite confident He never intended his actions to be construed as some general legitimation of the use of violence to solve problems.

 

[Hammer]

Jesus preached Hell more than any preacher I've ever heard.

 

[Classik]

Jesus preached Hell more than any preacher I've ever heard.

amusing...however very true

 

[Aardverk]

I remeber the sermon...but not the exact title. The summary is something like: Jesus didn't come to pamper us in our sin or justify it. He had to turn everything upside down in order to bring Godly decency into the world. Radical Jesus?

He wasn't that...he forced change. He didn't pamper people. He brought a message of war...

Perhaps you were thinking of Luke 12:51 etc. One of the most disturbing things in the NT.

Luke 12:51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." ​

That has indeed been achieved in millions of families both real and alegorical

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted..." (2 Timothy 3:12 NIV1984)



12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. (1 John 3:12-13 NIV1984)



16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

17 “Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matthew 10:16-22 NIV1984)



"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man..." (Luke 6:22 NIV1984)