A Muslim makes some points which DCCI Ministries’ Lizzie Schofield and evangelical Christians may want to consider. I noticed at one stage Lizzie claimed she believes Jesus never perpetrated violence against anyone, that’s not true for the Trinitarian as Jesus is considered the second person of the Trinity.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Luke 22:36 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
Context of Sureh 9:29
Answering Jihad: “Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe” – Quran 9:29
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come 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.
Mat 10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
This text has nothing to do with warfare and killing people.
1. Jesus is speaking about what happens with a family member that begins follow him.
2. There will be disagreements within the family, one wants to live righteous and the others want to live a sinful life.
3. The variance means dichazō
1) to cut into two parts, cleave asunder, sever
Jesus begins to qualify what he is saying the following;
V36 A man’s foes shall be those of his own household.
V37 He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.
So this whole text is talking our relationship between Jesus and our family, there is nothing in the verses about going around killing people.
You have read that into the verses.
1 Samuel 15:
Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
In your theology Jesus ordered the slaughter of “woman, child and infant” who were innocent of any crime.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“So this whole text is talking our relationship between Jesus and our family, there is nothing in the verses about going around killing people.”
but we seen what jesus was capable of in the temple. this was big area.
jewish homes would have been small. what is jesus capable of in small areas?
now we all know DIVISION and violence could exist even if nobody is killed. it is jesus who says that he is the one who is going to do the division, not his followers.
you heard that song “fire starter” ?
Another reason is equally circular, namely , that jesus is recorded to have preached ‘unqualified love’ elsewhere. but how did the fellows determine that it is the loving jesus that is authentic rather than the more violent one? if this saying is so starkly contraposed to the love sayings, then why does the redactor not see that? denying that jesus uttered this logion because it alludes to MIC 7.5-6 is also circular. given that QUOTING, or ALLUDING to, the HEBREW BIBLE was common in jewish exegesis of the time, how did the fellows determine that jesus could not allude to that passage?
However, perhaps the most common strategy is to misread jesus’ purpose clause, (‘for i have come to set a man against his father…’) as a result clause, which is not what the grammar of jesus’ language indicates at all. the relevant clauses in mt. 10 .34-35 are PURPOSE clauses, as indicated by the infinitives, in the greek expression…
‘ do not think that i have come to bring peace on earth; i have not come to bring peace, but a sword. for i have come to set a man against his father….’
As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17
‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’
jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent
LikeLiked by 1 person
Notice he did not even bother to comment on the verses where Jesus told the disciples to buy swords(Luke 22:36). These swords are clearly not metaphorical swords..as pur Christian friends like to interpret Mathew 34.
They purchased real ones. So real that it cut the Romans soldiers ear off where it even required the healing of Jesus as a tactic of WAR to retreat as a form of truce after proclaiming Jihad.
LikeLiked by 3 people
there is no healing in marks version and the job of the police is to come out with swords and clubs to protect people from being sliced, the jesus in marks version goes on to rebuke the arresting authorities but not one of rebuke to the slicer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is there a point to this post?
Yes. To spark discussion and thought on this subject.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But no point has been made that leads to rational discussion.