www.ArgumentCenter.org - Where hard questions are answered

• John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
• Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
• Luke 2:14 " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased."

  vs.

• Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 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. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
• Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

- http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra

 So was He? 

< STRONG Yes, Jesus was a man of peace.

Luke 22:36 [“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"] appears to contradict Jesus' teachings on turning the cheek and loving enemies. However, this verse should be considered along with Luke 10:4, which states, "Do not take a purse or bag or sandals..." There is a change in instruction. Jesus goes from telling the disciples not to take these things with them, to telling them to not only take a purse, bag, and sandals, but also a sword! The reason was to indicate the change in their situation.

David Guzik writes, "The disciples had been sent out to do ministry without Jesus before (Luke 10:1-17), but then they were received with goodwill and hospitality. Now they are facing a hostile world without Jesus, and must be prepared." (Commentary on Luke 22).

Matthew Henry adds that the instruction to get a sword "is intended only to show that the times would be very perilous, so that no man would think himself safe if he had not a sword by his side. But the sword of the Spirit is the sword which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves with...The disciples hereupon enquire what strength they had, and find they had among them two swords (v. 38), of which one was Peter’s...[Jesus] intimates how little he would have them depend upon this when he saith, It is enough...Yet two swords are sufficient for those who need none, having God himself to be the shield of their help and the sword of their excellency, Deu. 33:29." (Commentary on Luke 22)

Jesus wasn't really advocating violence, he was telling his disciples that the times were changing. Jesus never led an army or performed any violent acts while on earth. He even went willingly with the mob that came to arrest him and chastised them for coming with swords and clubs. In Luke 22:49-51, Jesus stopped his disciples from using their swords and he healed the servant whose ear was struck. This confirms that his disciples misunderstood his instruction to get swords. Therefore, yes, Jesus really was a man of peace.

-JM, http://answersforthefaith.com/bibleq/2007/11/06/jesus-a-man-of-peace/

>> WEAK No, Jesus was not a man of peace.

Matt 10:34-38 and Luke 12:51-53 convey the idea that the message of peace which Jesus brought would be divisive. There would be those who rejected it and those who accepted it, and this would naturally result in division. The definition of peace includes the absence of hostility, thus this 'message of peace' wasn't really such.

Further, those who aren't believers will be condemned to hell in the afterlife. That's not peaceful either.

-http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/jesuspeace.html

< STRONG Jesus speaks about peace between man and God, not peace between man and others.   

See argument below.

< STRONG Jesus' gospel may make peace between man and God, however it doesn't secure peace for man and the world. In fact, it usually creates tension.

There are different types of peace: peace between man and God, between nations, and between persons. The peace Jesus speaks of in the verses above are concerning peace between God and man: Luke 2:14 speaks about peace for men with whom God is pleased with (those who accept Jesus as Christ); John 14:27 about peace for Jesus' disciples, which is separate from the world (inner peace from God); and Acts 10:36 on the gospel of peace being brought to the Gentiles. All are dealing with cases of peace between God and man.

The gospel of Jesus makes peace between man and God, however it doesn't secure peace for man and the world. In fact, it may (and most likely will) result in tension, which is why Jesus says in Matt 10:34 that troubled relationships between family members can arise. This tension would result from a believer turning from his sinful past and the way of the world while his family and friends do not. A new believer could well have had a family who worshipped idols or false gods- this would have certainly put strain on their relationship, to say the least. Or the new believer's family could have been faithful, though unbelieving Jews, who thought Jesus and his followers were blasphemers worthy of death--again, certainly putting them at odds. Jesus was telling his followers that division between believers and unbelievers would occur; he wasn't advocating violence. This truth also occurs today. A most obvious example would be Christian persecution in other countries. Another, more common example would be a believer giving up his wild lifestyle with friends. He chooses to no longer be involved, thus putting him at odds with his friends who still want to get drunk, hit up strip clubs, do drugs, break the law, or whatever the case may be. The fact is, Jesus was telling his followers that they would encounter opposition.

- JM, http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050109.htm

>> Jesus still told his disciples to get a sword, how is that not advocating violence?

< STRONG Jesus wasn't really telling his followers to get a sword.

Matthew Henry says that instruction to get a sword "is intended only to show that the times would be very perilous, so that no man would think himself safe if he had not a sword by his side. But the sword of the Spirit is the sword which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves with...The disciples hereupon enquire what strength they had, and find they had among them two swords (v. 38), of which one was Peter’s...[Jesus] intimates how little he would have them depend upon this when he saith, It is enough...Yet two swords are sufficient for those who need none, having God himself to be the shield of their help and the sword of their excellency, Deu. 33:29." (Commentary on Luke 22)

Jesus wasn't really advocating violence, he was telling his disciples that the times were changing. Jesus never led an army or performed any violent acts while on earth. He even went willingly with the mob that came to arrest him and chastised them for coming with swords and clubs. In Luke 22:49-51, Jesus stopped his disciples from using their swords and he healed the servant whose ear was struck. This confirms that his disciples misunderstood his instruction to get swords. (from another argument)

-http://answersforthefaith.com/bibleq/2007/11/06/jesus-a-man-of-peace/

< OK Yes. In Luke 22:36 Jesus was teaching his disciples they would need to protect themselves, to not idly sit by when unrighteously persecuted.

Luke 22:36 Jesus is preparing the disciples for His departure. He is telling them that they will need to provide for themselves and even protect themselves. Up to that time, everything they had needed had been provided. But, after the crucifixion and ascension, they would again be "on their own." They would need to work, provide for their families, and, if need be, protect their own; hence, the mention of the sword. Of course, the Bible teaches that Christians are to be peaceful, loving, and forgiving; however, it also teaches that we are not required to sit idly by when persecuted unrighteously.

The rest of the "peace" verses, teach just that: peace.

Jesus did not contradict Himself. When we look at His words in context, we can see what He was saying and that there is no contradiction at all.

-http://carm.org/did-jesus-come-to-bring-peace-or-not

>> That is a contradiction because using a sword for protection is still going against the definition of peace.

You'd be causing a civil disturbance, breaking the order within the community, and creating disharmony in a relationship- all going against the definition of "peace."

< STRONG Jesus didn't literally mean for his disciples to get swords.

Matthew Henry says that instruction to get a sword "is intended only to show that the times would be very perilous, so that no man would think himself safe if he had not a sword by his side. But the sword of the Spirit is the sword which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves with...The disciples hereupon enquire what strength they had, and find they had among them two swords (v. 38), of which one was Peter’s...[Jesus] intimates how little he would have them depend upon this when he saith, It is enough...Yet two swords are sufficient for those who need none, having God himself to be the shield of their help and the sword of their excellency, Deu. 33:29." (Commentary on Luke 22)

Jesus wasn't really advocating violence, he was telling his disciples that the times were changing. Jesus never led an army or performed any violent acts while on earth. He even went willingly with the mob that came to arrest him and chastised them for coming with swords and clubs. In Luke 22:49-51, Jesus stopped his disciples from using their swords and he healed the servant whose ear was struck. This confirms that his disciples misunderstood his instruction to get swords. (from another argument)

-http://answersforthefaith.com/bibleq/2007/11/06/jesus-a-man-of-peace/