Luke 12:51-53 and Matthew 10:34-39

[achilles12604]

These two verses are continually used as "evidence" Jesus was violent or evil or whatever.

Final Engima wrote:

And by the way achillies those are not Jesus' worst words even these are worse, and i remembered about this from the top of my head:

Luke 12:51-53 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

or maybe this one

Matthew 10:34-39

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Is FinalEnigma's analysis of these words totally accurate or is there a much deeper meaning to these words? What could this meaning be?

I'll reply with my analyis in a bit.

[Goat]

These two verses are continually used as "evidence" Jesus was violent or evil or whatever.

Final Engima wrote:

And by the way achillies those are not Jesus' worst words even these are worse, and i remembered about this from the top of my head:

Luke 12:51-53 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

or maybe this one

Matthew 10:34-39

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Is FinalEnigma's analysis of these words totally accurate or is there a much deeper meaning to these words? What could this meaning be?

I'll reply with my analyis in a bit.

If people want to find a deeper meaning, they will find it, even if it isn't there.

IMO, it is highly unlikely that Jesus spoke the words of Matthew... or at least it is modified. The words 'Take his cross' is signalling a foreknowledge I do not believe would have been there.

[twobitsmedia]

These two verses are continually used as "evidence" Jesus was violent or evil or whatever.

Final Engima wrote:

And by the way achillies those are not Jesus' worst words even these are worse, and i remembered about this from the top of my head:

Luke 12:51-53 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

or maybe this one

Matthew 10:34-39

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Is FinalEnigma's analysis of these words totally accurate or is there a much deeper meaning to these words? What could this meaning be?

I'll reply with my analyis in a bit.

I think there are some key words and phrases which tie this to some other ideas, and not necessarily bloodshed warfare (although I cannot say it could not be).

1) "Do not think I have come to give "peace on earth". The Bible also says he came to bring peace, and "blessed are the peacemakers." So it is a contradiction unless one emphasizes "on earth." Peace with God means "warfare" with the enemies of God. If a man is at peace with sinful man, he is at war with God. This doesnt necessarily mean they are drawing swords on each other, however,
2) "not peace, but a sword." Where else do we see reference to the word "sword?" "The sword of the spirit," the Bible. The word of God. The word of God will separate you from your enemies and even family members. One instance, among many, would be interpretation of the scripture itself. Man has two options: "divide it rightly" and interpret it the way it is supposed to be, which may not please everyone. Or interpret it in a way that will make everyone happy. Many choose to interpret the Bible that it lets everyone into heaven (for example) and then makes everyone happy. This person has thus made peace with man and set himself as an enemy of God.
3) "members of his household". The allegance is to God more than your family. Even in the Old testament law, there were instances where a parent was to stone a rebellious son or daughter.
4)" He who loses his life will find it..." I see it as necessary to tack that on the end. One who wishes to please everyone is in a survival mode. They just want to make peace with everyone and get through life and that may mean regardless of reality. But also, one cannot see the importance of this until one gets themselves out of the way. If we look at it at face value, with all our emotions and preconcieved judgements, it looks kind of evil that God would want to to go against your own family if you have to. No, we are just to get ourselves out of the way. That is, after all, the only way to see things as they really are.

[achilles12604]

These two verses are continually used as "evidence" Jesus was violent or evil or whatever.

Final Enigma wrote:

And by the way achillies those are not Jesus' worst words even these are worse, and i remembered about this from the top of my head:

Luke 12:51-53 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

or maybe this one

Matthew 10:34-39

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Is FinalEnigma's analysis of these words totally accurate or is there a much deeper meaning to these words? What could this meaning be?

I'll reply with my analysis in a bit.

If people want to find a deeper meaning, they will find it, even if it isn't there.

IMO, it is highly unlikely that Jesus spoke the words of Matthew... or at least it is modified. The words 'Take his cross' is signalling a foreknowledge I do not believe would have been there.

I read these verses and experience a feeling of "Well - DUH!"

To me these passages spell out fairly clearly what the obvious outcome has been. Jesus was simply commenting on the effect his presence would have on the future generations. Really he didn't even need supernatural insight to reach the conclusion that his presence would be divisive.

In any case, I disagree with Final Enigma's analysis that these words are hateful or Jesus "worst words". My worst words certainly weren’t "If terrorists are financed well they can murder millions more than they currently do." This is simply an observation of a fact.

I read Jesus words in a similar fashion. He is simply observing that his presence will cause families to divide, due to the nature of beliefs.

And this is exactly what has happened. Even in my own family, My mother, Younger Brother and Father are all believers. My Sister and my older brother are not. 3 against 2 just as described in the passages above.

I find nothing evil in a simple observation of the obvious.

[Ghost_of_Amityville]

I honestly don't see how anyone could view Jesus as violent or evil. The idea that Jesus would cause people to take up swords against one another appears to be a statement of unfortunate fact as opposed to saying it with some kind of approval. It's the idea that the religious concepts of and about Jesus would cause disunions among even intimate aquaintances, which is viewed as highly regrettable.

[micatala]

These two verses are continually used as "evidence" Jesus was violent or evil or whatever.

Final Engima wrote:

And by the way achillies those are not Jesus' worst words even these are worse, and i remembered about this from the top of my head:

Luke 12:51-53 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

or maybe this one

Matthew 10:34-39

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Is FinalEnigma's analysis of these words totally accurate or is there a much deeper meaning to these words? What could this meaning be?

I'll reply with my analyis in a bit.

I would agree that these seem to imply 'personal divisions' or 'differences of belief or action' rather than literal warfare.

I think it is worth pointing out that there are verses which seem to indicate that, at least during a part of his ministry, Jesus was viewed negatively by his own family. See the verse (Mark I think) where his "mothers and brothers" come to see him but he replies "who are my mothers and sisters and brothers? those that do the will of God" etc.

However, I should mention another verse the Final Enigma is not mentioned as having brought up.

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

This also has been used to depict Jesus as violent or part of a violent Godhead. Even though it is part of a parable, the usual interpretation is that Jesus is the returning king.

How do we interpret this in light of the other verses?

[Ghost_of_Amityville]

Luke 19: 26-27 is obviously part of Jesus's so-called eschological discourse, which should raise eyebrows as to its literalness without any further saying. It seems more to describe this idea of ultimate justice, and describing those who are on the wrong side of ultimate justice. The killing in the verses is not literal killing. It's more like a spiritual death. All in all, the ambiguity that comes along with the doctrine of a Second Coming does have to lead one to the conclusion that it probably doesn't depict a violent Jesus/God because there are innumerable interpretations and the idea of a violent Jesus/God doesn't really fit into the spirit of the rest of the Gospel of Luke, the four Gospels, or the New Testament.

[Goat]

Luke 19: 26-27 is obviously part of Jesus's so-called eschological discourse, which should raise eyebrows as to its literalness without any further saying. It seems more to describe this idea of ultimate justice, and describing those who are on the wrong side of ultimate justice. The killing in the verses is not literal killing. It's more like a spiritual death. All in all, the ambiguity that comes along with the doctrine of a Second Coming does have to lead one to the conclusion that it probably doesn't depict a violent Jesus/God because there are innumerable interpretations and the idea of a violent Jesus/God doesn't really fit into the spirit of the rest of the Gospel of Luke, the four Gospels, or the New Testament.

Using the words of the parable itself, show me how a 'spiritual death' can be justified, rather than an actual death.

[micatala]

Luke 19: 26-27 is obviously part of Jesus's so-called eschological discourse, which should raise eyebrows as to its literalness without any further saying. It seems more to describe this idea of ultimate justice, and describing those who are on the wrong side of ultimate justice. The killing in the verses is not literal killing. It's more like a spiritual death. All in all, the ambiguity that comes along with the doctrine of a Second Coming does have to lead one to the conclusion that it probably doesn't depict a violent Jesus/God because there are innumerable interpretations and the idea of a violent Jesus/God doesn't really fit into the spirit of the rest of the Gospel of Luke, the four Gospels, or the New Testament.

I agree a non-literal reading seems most appropriate.

However, since FE has not chimed in yet, let me play Devil's Advocate (figuratively speaking).

Even if one does posit that this is not literal violence on earth or violence on the flesh, but rather an 'ultimate judgment', does this really make the subjective depiction of Jesus better or less violent? Eternal damnation or 'spiritual killing' could in many ways be considered a worse fate than earthly violence or death. In fact, both apologists and critics of Christianity have made this point numerous times.

[Ghost_of_Amityville]

Luke 19: 26-27 is obviously part of Jesus's so-called eschological discourse, which should raise eyebrows as to its literalness without any further saying. It seems more to describe this idea of ultimate justice, and describing those who are on the wrong side of ultimate justice. The killing in the verses is not literal killing. It's more like a spiritual death. All in all, the ambiguity that comes along with the doctrine of a Second Coming does have to lead one to the conclusion that it probably doesn't depict a violent Jesus/God because there are innumerable interpretations and the idea of a violent Jesus/God doesn't really fit into the spirit of the rest of the Gospel of Luke, the four Gospels, or the New Testament.

Using the words of the parable itself, show me how a 'spiritual death' can be justified, rather than an actual death.

Okay, I can try. Here's Luke, chapter 19 ...

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke19.htm

I suggest reading the entire chapter so one can get the exact context.

Verse 12 is clearly referring to the idea of a Second Coming when it sets up the parable as "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return."

The return or Second Coming finds servants who have been given money to use wisely (Christian disciples). Some of the servants have indeed used their gifts wisely, while others have not. That means that some Christians have actually let their religion affect their lives in a positive way while others have not. Some have lived what they are taught while others have not. Every Christian who doesn't live what they are taught (what they are taught is assumed to be teaching in "real" life, aka a life filled with love, peace, duty, truthfulness, and helpfulness) is dead in a sense, because the Christian disciple is only truly living if they are filled with love, peace, duty, truthfulness, helpfulness, etc.