I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
|
This brief comment by shiert was cut from the Canaanite Genocide and its Monstrous Concept of God thread. Jesus did not mean this ‘sword’ to be understood metaphorically. Sorry, Andrew, but I can’t let this really silly statement slip by. Of course Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Is there evidence of any sort that Jesus was a sword-wielding inciter of the violent engagement by the sword with anyone? By the way, the metaphor is troubling enough. Sometimes friends call each other silly. Happy New Year! |
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Comments
Re: Canaanite Genocide and its Monstrous Concept of God
I’m afraid I still don’t think he’s speaking metaphorically and I don’t think the statement is silly. Of course, Jesus did not wield the sword and did not incite violence. But he clearly speaks in a prophetic idiom - Jeremiah 14:11-16 is a good precursor:
The LORD said to me: “Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Though they fast, I will not hear their cry, and though they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence.”
Then I said: “Ah, Lord GOD, behold, the prophets say to them, ‘You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you assured peace in this place.’” … Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who prophesy in my name although I did not send them, and who say, ‘Sword and famine shall not come upon this land’: By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed. And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem, victims of famine and sword, with none to bury them—them, their wives, their sons, and their daughters. For I will pour out their evil upon them.
I would suggest that there is ample reason to think that when Jesus uses this sort of language, he speaks as the prophets did of military aggression directed towards Israel. It is his way of saying that the coming of the reign of God was, in the first place, an act of divine judgment on an unrighteous and rebellious people, and that this would take the form of military action. Jesus was not the sort of false prophet who would proclaim peace to Israel at a time when the nation was careering blindly towards war.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Canaanite Genocide and its Monstrous Concept of God
Yes, taken isolation it is not certain that Jesus has in mind a passage such as Jeremiah 14:11-16. But when we take the whole context into account, including the clear allusion to Micah 7:6, and other statements in the Gospels, a more or less literal interpretation of Jesus’ words seems inescapable.
To start with, the surrounding passage in Matthew 10 suggests that Jesus is thinking of violent circumstances: the disciples are sent out as sheep in the midst of wolves, they will be flogged in the synagogues, brother will deliver brother over to death, children will have their parents put to death, but they will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of man comes (10:16-23); and because Jesus brings a sword, because he has come to set family members against each other, his followers must be willing to lose their lives for his sake.
This may be as much as Jesus is saying, but in Micah family strife (Jesus virtually quotes the text) is a symptom of Israel’s sin (7:1-7); it is one of the reasons why YHWH will ‘strike you with a grievous blow, making you desolate because of your sins’ (Mic. 6:13). That ‘grievous blow’ is war. Given the fact that the war against Rome broke out within a generation after Jesus’ death, resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and massive loss of life, why would we want to avoid what seems to me the very natural conclusion that he spoke in a prophetic idiom of impending violence that would be the final judgment of YHWH on his people because of their sins?
Why do we think that Jesus was only interested in spiritual things and not willing or able to foresee the destruction of his people and interpret that event through the eyes of the Old Testament prophets (notice the next paragraph: ‘The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward’: Matt. 10:41)? Or why would we imagine that his Jewish hearers, thoroughly versed in the language of the prophets, painfully aware of the nation’s history of violent conflict and oppression, facing the daily humiliation and dangers of living under Roman rule (cf. Lk. 13:11), would have supposed that he was only speaking metaphorically of a sword?
The theme of devastating judgment runs right through the Gospels, from John the Baptist’s warning that the axe is already laid to the root of the trees, that any tree that does not bear good fruit will be thrown cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt. 3:10), to Jesus’ parable about a king who sends his troops to destroy the city of those who refuse to come to his banquet (Matt. 22:7), to his quite literal prophecy of the event in Luke:
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation." (Lk. 19:41-44)
In response to your suggestion that he is thinking of a division of the body politic, I would point out that this would be a very Greek metaphor, quite uncharacteristic of Jesus’ thought. It is not, as far as I am aware, found in the Jewish scriptures. There is, moreover, no mention of a ‘body’ in the passage. What we have quite unmistakably is the language of Old Testament prophecy. So I think we have to ask first whether we can make literary and historical sense of Jesus’ words against that obviously relevant background.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Canaanite Genocide and its Monstrous Concept of God
Well, yes, of course. But who decides what constitutes a compelling argument? We all have our prejudices and blind spots; we all get our wheels stuck in ruts. I try to listen carefully to disagreements, but I find that it can take time before I am willing to acknowledge that my view needs amending or rejecting. At the moment I feel committed to mining this narrative-realist seam - I think that there is a lot more to get out of it; I think it explains a lot; and I think it has the potential to provide a radically different framework for the church’s self-understanding and mission. But that doesn’t mean I’m right - it’s just a voice in a conversation. Yours is another voice, and I listen to it quite carefully. Whether or not either of us shifts our ground in the process is probably less important than that we listen to each other.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
An aside that may be worth pondering…
This is a great discussion thread. Structuring the conversation, however, seems to be the unspoken presumption that language is either metaphorical or literal.
This is a problematic dichotomy for a couple of reasons.
1). You have to make guesses as to which language is metaphorical and which language is literal. Debating the line between metaphorical/literal is a red herring that will capture the debater’s attention away from the central issue—what did Jesus’ words mean then/now/for our future?
2). Related to the red herring above, the metaphorical/literal dichotomy opens the door to internal contradiction. Language, in other words, should not be seen as either metaphorical or literal. Rather, language should be conceptualized consistently—however you conceptualize it.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
If you conceptualize all of the Holy Bible as metaphor, then it seems to me that you are being consistent.
My concern is this back forth between you and Andrew regarding what is metaphor and what is not metaphor. I would say that there is little grounds to warrant the claim that some of the Bible is metaphor and some of the Bible is literal—it also looks inconsistent. I urge people to take a logically consistent stand and move forward with your reading. If you do that by declaring the Bible all metaphor, then great.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
At base in the entire thread is the nagging question of how can we
square a God which countenances the wholesale annihilation of races of
human beings with a caring, loving, merciful, compassionate, empathetic
God.
You presume that this "nagging question" can be squared. Maybe it cannot. Maybe the question has nothing to do with the nature of our God, which we can do little about, but has everything to do with your faith in that God.
Maybe the God of Israel is Love and Fury in One. Perhaps the Unity of God is Plural and Complex.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Metaphor! Hmmm? Perhaps we are concentrating on the wrong thing here. We are concentrating on the language. Perhaps there is more to be learned by concentrating on the object. Lets start with sword. When Jesus instructed His disciples to sell their extra garments and buy swords were they real or metaphorical? The sword Peter had in the garden, the one he used to remove another mans ear? Real or metaphor? It appears again in Revelation 19:11 when Christ rides out of Heaven on a white horse, His clothes drenched in blood, His eyes flashing fire, His white hair and beard blowing in the wind and clutched in His teeth a sword. Real or metaphor? Now do you believe Jesus is going to use that sword or is He just being silly?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Not quite sure where you’re taking this, but surely genre is a relevant consideration here. The Gospels purport to be and are written as historical, or at least quasi-historical, accounts. Revelation is a visionary and highly symbolic text. The fact that the sword in Revelation 19:15 emerges from the mouth (not clutched between his teeth!) of the one who is called The Word of God is presumably meant to indicate that John believes that this final victory will come through the proclamation of the gospel. The symbolic association of sword and mouth is found in Job 5:15 and Isaiah 49:2. I think that this needs to be understood in relation to the victory of the early persecuted church over Roman paganism.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
On what grounds do you determine that some books of the Bible are symbolic and others are quasi-historical? How do you draw the line? Do you make these determinations by reference to the Bible itself or to outside sources or is it a working presumption that you made before you started reading the text?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Kent Clark
Excuse me for assuming He had teeth in His mouth. My point is that we look to hard for symbolism in a context that might be more firmly and accurately associated with reality. I believe like you mintioned genre, the genre of the sword carries us away from the symbolic into a real and actual arrival of justice. The Word of God on a white horse.
If the sword of Christ has a symbolic meaning surely it is this, justice. Symbolism is not always the reality. Granted Revelation is highly symbolic but in searching for symbolism even in Revelation lets not overlook what may be plain, accurate, literal prophecy. Is the holy city symbolic? Should we go into that as well? When we search for symbolism shouldn’t we also conclude the obvious.
I am noting that this search for symbolism has resulted in some people referring to other peoples thoughts as silly and I don’t think any search for relevance should conclude this type of judgemental intone. It’s a sign of immaturity. Everyone is entitled to a thought even if it doesn’t agree with our concept. It’s how we learn. Symbolism is an important study that should not be bogged down with negative inuendos. Lets not look at the entire bible in the light of symbolism though. There’s more to it then that.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
I still would like to know how you discern between “plain, accurate, literal” words in the Bible and symbolic words in the Bible. And what exactly is the difference between these two kinds of words?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
How do we get passed the language of “sword” and get to the object sword?
The question of “real or metaphor” is a red herring and not answerable by reference to the text. The more important question is: What does the sword mean to Jesus then/to us now?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Thats pretty sneaky Jake. Its very good research. I apologize my last posting got in twice. Tried to delete but no luck.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
I’m not exactly sure what’s so sneaky about what I wrote. I just fear that we are quick to dart off onto a discussion of what’s real and what’s metaphor when the important topic is the meaning of Jesus’ words then and now.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
That seemed to be the suggestion of your post. For instance, you say "the genre of the sword carries us away from the symbolic into a real and actual arrival of justice." The mention of "symbolic into real" implies symbolic is not real.
Since we were talking about symbolic and literal, and here you are saying that symbolic is not real, I inferred that you were saying literal meant real. If you didn’t, my mistake.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Either way, that’s why I conflated the two together.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Begs the question in logical terms? Or does it beg a specific question that you haven’t asked?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Exactly! The question is what is the meaning then and now. The focus is not on what words are literal and what words are metaphor—that is a red herring.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
While I do not claim to know, I feel fairly certain that God does not play by rules devised by human beings.
I believe that the story of God’s people does have an end, which is made meaningful in the words of the the Bible, a text I trust. So, yes, I believe the creator can destroy everything. I mean, there is the story of Genesis and the destructive power of the flood that destroyed basically everything except a chosen few; so, why not again?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Tom Wright offers an interesting proposal on the “sword” statement. Perhaps it needs to be viewed in light of its historicity, and the story of Israel. Those who followed Jesus would be vindicated as true Israel, the true people of God. Those who clung to the old way, of nationalistic zeal and the temple would indeed experience the “sword” of Gods judgement, carried out by the Romans in AD70.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Exactly. That makes perfect historical and literary sense. Historical because that’s what happened. Literary because that’s how the language was used in the Old Testament, which is by a very long way the most relevant interpretive background for the Gospels.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
He has the power to destroy what justice and love will destroy.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page

Richard Dawkins, Knowledge, and Faith
Proving God’s Existence Absolutely: The Atheists vs. Christians Debates Often Yield Rotten Fruit
Sir Toby Redivivus?
Jesus is not God Almighty
Is Jesus Even Relevant?
The Irony of Christian Syncretism