Reply #14: Jesus's warfare is only spiritual and moral (Ephesians 6:10-20) The Church proclaims peace, or it [View All]

[papau]

Jesus's warfare is only spiritual and moral (Ephesians 6:10-20) The Church proclaims peace, or it may counsel a just war, depending on the circumstances. If the Church were to teach only pacifism, it would violate its own Scriptures (Romans 13:1-7).
==============================================
Matthew 10:34 reads:

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (New International Version, NIV)

And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 said to , "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)


but in context:

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household

37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."


Seems the verse isn't a call to a military holy war but refers to how following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up (Micah 7:6), the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that?

also

Luke 12:49-53 reads:

49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo , and how distressed I am until it is completed! 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."

Seems Jesus did not endorse physical violence against one's own family, but he warns people about possible family division.

and at the last Supper

Luke 22:35-38 says:

35 asked them , "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 said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

There are two interpretation of the verses -strictly physical in which swords must be used -or a non-physical one in which swords must not be used, The violent use of swords does not fit the rest of the story so we are left with the non-physical one, I believe.

Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when Peter shows him two, Jesus says they 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 were 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 (22:54).

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 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 falsely arrested like a criminal, falsely put on trial like a criminal, and even falsely crucified like a criminal. After all, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment 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 fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ's arrest, then his death would not have taken place, so prophecy would have been thwarted. That is why Jesus told him to put his sword back in its place (Matthew 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after he 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 is supported by Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As we have seen, above, in context, he does not mean a literal sword that divides the family, but a spiritual and moral one. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus' meaning of "sword" as non-literal in the two parallel passages. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why not in 22:36-38?

Early Christian history

The foregoing interpretation of the non-physical use of swords does not say that the two swords did not exist (verse 38). They are not mere symbols, nor were they imaginary or invisible. Peter really did cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest with one of them (Matthew 26:50-51; Luke 22:49-51). Also, Jesus said to Peter in the Garden, "Put your sword back in its place," meaning, back in its scabbard or holder or in Peter's belt or another article of clothing. He never said to throw the sword away, off to the side at a distance. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some disciples carried them after the crucifixion and burial when they lived in hostile territory, and maybe some did after the Resurrection and Ascension.

However, later reliable tradition says that none of the apostles fought or even tried to fight their way out of fiery trials with swords, as some sort of misguided, twisted, violent martyrs. Instead, tradition says that all of the original apostles but John were martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes in old age). Evidently, the example of Jesus throughout his life and in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on them.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/pacifism_and_the_sword_in_the.html