Matthew 10:34, 35, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." The same matter is treated on in Luke 12:51, and is a strong indication that Jesus was not filled with that spirit of peace so indissolubly attached to the office of Messiah. For, regarding the expected Messiah, Zechariah, in chapter 9:10, says, "And he will speak peace unto the nations." Concerning that period it was prophecied by Isaiah in chapter 2:4; and in Micah 4:3, "Nation shall not lift up the sword against nation." How much less will it then be allowable that a man should "be set at variance against his father?" On the contrary, the Divine promise runs thus (in conclusion of Malachi), "And he shall restore the heart of the fathers unto the children, and the heart of the children unto their fathers."
This is extremely ironic coming from the mouth of a Jew. One of the main charges that the rabbis continually bring to Jesus is that he did not overthrow the oppressors of Israel in a manner akin to the Maccabees, establishing Israel as an independent power. Every other Messianic claimant tried to establish the kingdom of God through violent revolution. N.T. Wright notes that there were many of these before Jesus, and they generally got themselves killed, ending their messianic claim.
Jesus came on to the scene preaching peace:
While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” (Luke 22:47-53)
The next question is: what did Jesus mean by bringing a sword:
"The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word "sword," and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them, because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently."The passage is not advocating violence, but to win so many converts that it would cause divisions within families. This act of division continues until this day. Jews from Orthodox families who decide to follow Jesus risk total alienation. Some are shunned. In some Islamic countries, they are put to death, ratted out by their own families. This is the cost of following Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.