Q: In Matthew 26:52, Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword -- for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Doesnt this contradict other passages? In Matthew 10:34, Jesus said that He came not to bring peace, but a sword, and in Luke 22:36 He tells His disciples, Let him who has no sword sell his garment and buy one. These are conflicting sentiments, to say the least!
A: The answer to this problem partly overlaps what I wrote about Matthew 10:34-36 at
p089.ezboard.com/fsabdisc...=420.topic . When Jesus said in Matthew 10:34 that He came to bring not peace, but a sword, the sword is a metaphor for separation, not an emblem of armed conflict. Luke takes the extra step of providing the sense of the statement, in Luke 12:51. No matter how peaceable and pacifistic a person tries to be, it can elicit a divisive and even violent response. (For instance, suppose a Muslim in Kuwait would convert to Christianity. He would thus risk violence and even death, and unless his family also converted, his family would certainly be separated from him. Yet, between the options of (a) the mans soul is lost, but he remains in peaceful surroundings with his family, or (b) the mans soul is saved, but he has to run for his life and his family pronounces him effectively dead, option (b) is better in the long run.)
Regarding Luke 22:36 -- Jesus is here arranging the fulfillment of a prophecy by making sure that the soldiers can keep His trial moving along by noting that His disciples resisted them with weapons -- thus getting Him classified with criminals, a la Isaiah 53:12, as cited in Luke 22:37. The simple act of brandishing the weapons was sufficient for this, however; when Peter actually used his sword he was going beyond what Jesus had instructed.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: The answer to this problem partly overlaps what I wrote about Matthew 10:34-36 at
p089.ezboard.com/fsabdisc...=420.topic . When Jesus said in Matthew 10:34 that He came to bring not peace, but a sword, the sword is a metaphor for separation, not an emblem of armed conflict. Luke takes the extra step of providing the sense of the statement, in Luke 12:51. No matter how peaceable and pacifistic a person tries to be, it can elicit a divisive and even violent response. (For instance, suppose a Muslim in Kuwait would convert to Christianity. He would thus risk violence and even death, and unless his family also converted, his family would certainly be separated from him. Yet, between the options of (a) the mans soul is lost, but he remains in peaceful surroundings with his family, or (b) the mans soul is saved, but he has to run for his life and his family pronounces him effectively dead, option (b) is better in the long run.)
Regarding Luke 22:36 -- Jesus is here arranging the fulfillment of a prophecy by making sure that the soldiers can keep His trial moving along by noting that His disciples resisted them with weapons -- thus getting Him classified with criminals, a la Isaiah 53:12, as cited in Luke 22:37. The simple act of brandishing the weapons was sufficient for this, however; when Peter actually used his sword he was going beyond what Jesus had instructed.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
