Isn't Jesus inconsistant?

[polonius]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. —Matthew 10:34

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. —John 16:33

[Eloi]

[Replying to polonius]
No, Jesus was not inconsistent. Even if some people around us have no peace, we can have it.

The enemies of the kingdom of Christ fight against it/him, especially when they see that he has already conquered and brought pre-benefits on the people who serve him in unity, even before it is established over all the earth. The people who serve the King of God have peace in the middle of a world that cannot enjoy it.

[Overcomer]

Context is everything. These verses can only be understood by looking at the passages in which we find them.

In Matthew 10, Jesus commissions his disciples to go out into the world and spread the gospel. He warns them that they will face opposition and suffer in doing so. And when he says that he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword, he is using the sword metaphorically to mean that people will divide over him and be at odds because of him. This is not his purpose in coming, but the effect he will have on those who hear his message. When we read verse 34 in context, this becomes obvious.

In John 16, Jesus talks about how he is leaving his disciples, but sending another Advocate, that is, the Holy Spirit to them, to be with them after he has gone. The Holy Spirit will teach them, comfort them, guide them and, therefore, their grief at his leaving will turn to joy. He tells them that he is explaining what is to come so that they might have peace about it when it happens. So he is speaking specifically to his disciples about a specific event, not about bringing peace in general.

Again, it's imperative to look at individual verses in the context of the chapter, the book in which the chapter is found, and the entire Bible. Here's the rule of thumb re: removing one single verse and using it on its own. If it means the same out of context as it does in, that's fine. But if you change its meaning by taking it out of context and misapplying it, that's improper exegesis and just plain wrong. I think it's obvious that taking these verses out of context to try to make them seem contradictory is an example of the latter.

[Checkpoint]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. —Matthew 10:34

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. —John 16:33

No, these verses show us how consistent Jesus is.

What we learn from these verses is that there are two kinds of people and two kinds of peace.

"I came", Jesus said, "not to bring peace, but a sword".

Not a physical outward sword, but a spiritual one that confronts and exposes the inward state of the human heart.

That is the effect Jesus has always had on us, and we either get it and accepi him, or miss it and reject him and those who follow him.

The sword brings division in wider families who thus split into for and against, into those who are for this world and its ways, and those who are for Jesus and his ways. Two kinds of people.

Neither has outward peace. But the one who is for Jesus and does not deny him, experiences his promise and his presence, John 16:33,

"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world".

Two kinds of peace.


"

[koko]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. —Matthew 10:34

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. —John 16:33

The answer to this is readily found in Ephesians 6:10-18 where the New Testament illustrates the "full armor of God" to be used by Christians in their battles with the devil:


Ephesians 6:10-18 New International Version (NIV)
The Armor of God
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.



https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV



The sword Jesus referred to was the Holy Spirit along with the Bible, not a physical weapon.

[DavidLeon]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. —Matthew 10:34

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. —John 16:33

Peace at the point of a sword is a proposition that all Westerners should be able to relate to. Freedom and democracy at the point of a gun isn't dissimilar. The Peace that Jesus' followers were promised would come at the cost of division and ultimate everlasting destruction of the "wicked." That was Jesus' message, so no, it wasn't inconsistent.

[gadfly]

Is it possible that the greater context of the two passages contains the key?

In John Jesus has just described the conflict that is about to follow: his own people are about to turn against him, his own disciples will scatter. This is quite consistent with his prophetic word in Matthew that Jesus is going to be a point of division. HOwever, even during the tumult, one can have peace in Jesus. The inconsistency becomes superficial. Outside of the church or even any faith tradition people talk of finding peace in difficult times.

gadfly

[Diogenes]

Interesting how automatically some rise to the bait and declare Jesus NOT to be inconsistent, despite the obvious fact that he, like most intelligent people, is inconsistent. This is not a bad thing. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.... To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Jesus preached we should be meek, 'poor in spirit,' forgiving, going the 'second mile,' settling disputes quickly. Paul captured his ethos with "love does not seek its own way." Yet we have this same Jesus striking the money changers, overturning tables, and calling out liars and hypocrites, damning them to hellfire. Jesus was fully human, to be human and be great is to do what is right and not be tied inflexibly to "a foolish inconsistency."

[koko]

Interesting how automatically some rise to the bait and declare Jesus NOT to be inconsistent, despite the obvious fact that he, like most intelligent people, is inconsistent. This is not a bad thing. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.... To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Jesus preached we should be meek, 'poor in spirit,' forgiving, going the 'second mile,' settling disputes quickly. Paul captured his ethos with "love does not seek its own way." Yet we have this same Jesus striking the money changers, overturning tables, and calling out liars and hypocrites, damning them to hellfire. Jesus was fully human, to be human and be great is to do what is right and not be tied inflexibly to "a foolish inconsistency."

If the use of a martial sword is proof of inconsistency, then the examples you gave fail to prove Jesus's so called inconsistency. In none of those examples did he resort to the use of a lethal weapon. Instead, he used words and what was likely a stock or drafting whip which is used by herders to direct their stock. The narrative in the Gospels do not indicate that Jesus physically assaulted any of those merchants who defiled the temple. Nor is there any indication he wounded anyone. True, historically, Western art depicts him engaging in severe violence, almost as if he was about to kill the heretics. But nowhere in the Bible is he depicted as such. On that basis it appears the claim that Jesus was "inconsistent" has not been proven.

[Diogenes]

Interesting how automatically some rise to the bait and declare Jesus NOT to be inconsistent, despite the obvious fact that he, like most intelligent people, is inconsistent. This is not a bad thing. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.... To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Jesus preached we should be meek, 'poor in spirit,' forgiving, going the 'second mile,' settling disputes quickly. Paul captured his ethos with "love does not seek its own way." Yet we have this same Jesus striking the money changers, overturning tables, and calling out liars and hypocrites, damning them to hellfire. Jesus was fully human, to be human and be great is to do what is right and not be tied inflexibly to "a foolish inconsistency."

If the use of a martial sword is proof of inconsistency, then the examples you gave fail to prove Jesus's so called inconsistency. In none of those examples did he resort to the use of a lethal weapon. Instead, he used words and what was likely a stock or drafting whip which is used by herders to direct their stock. The narrative in the Gospels do not indicate that Jesus physically assaulted any of those merchants who defiled the temple. Nor is there any indication he wounded anyone. True, historically, Western art depicts him engaging in severe violence, almost as if he was about to kill the heretics. But nowhere in the Bible is he depicted as such. On that basis it appears the claim that Jesus was "inconsistent" has not been proven.

You appear to be confusing the word "lethal" with the word "consistent." Lethality has nothing necessarily to do with inconsistency. Jesus taught love, empathy, calmness, forgiveness, meekness; yet when angered he beat people who were desecrating the temple. He called Pharisees, 'Children of Hell." That He never killed anyone is irrelevant.