The Sword of Christ

I appreciate that as you point out there is some hypocrisy in those who on the one hand declare Islam to have been spread by the sword, while at the same time history has shown many Christians willing to freely wield it as well.

However, beyond claiming that Muslims do not even believe these to represent the true sayings of Jesus, I think it is a stretch to make them into some sort of violence promoting advocacy -- Trumble (a Buddhist, not a Christian) showed why significantly well enough that I need not repeat his points a second time. Thus to declare hypocrisy based on these scriptual passages is disingenious.


However with respect to the most disturbing of these passages, Passage Three: “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36). I want to take exception to the particular interpretation given above:

Obviously, the reaction of the Jews in Jerusalem was not what Jesus had expected. Although he longed to rule over his people, God's plan was different and Jesus never ascended into a position of power. The Christian contends that Jesus is here referring to a "spiritual sword!" Well, I suppose the garments in which we must sell are also spiritual. If the disciples sold their spiritual garments for spiritual swords then that would make them spiritually naked!

Was it with a spiritual sword that Peter struck the servant of the High Priest’s ear off? When Jesus sees Peter do this, that is, when he sees Peter strike the servant with a sword that he (Jesus) told Peter to purchase in the first place, Jesus rebukes him (in Matthew).

Why now? Because, the strategy has changed. Jesus did not expect to face trained Roman legionaries -- The Gospel of John is unique in identifying the band of men who accompanied the Jewish officers who arrested Jesus as a “speira;” a word that has a Latin origin and means “military cohort” or “detachment of soldiers”). It would have been total suicide for him to follow through with his Jihad (struggle).

These events reportedly occurred on the Mount of Olives in the Garden of Gethsemane, after the Last Supper. Why did Jesus decide to go there, and not to the Temple of Solomon if he was just planning on "praying?" After all, the Temple was only a "stone's throw" from the Upper Room where they had just finished eating and singing hymns.

Jesus goes to prepare for battle! He places eight disciples at the entrance of the Garden and then takes his three champion disciples, Peter the Rock, John, and James the "sons of Thunder" deeper inside to create an inner circle of defense.

First, it is NOT at all obvious that Jesus was surprised by the reaction of the Jews of Jerusalem. Indeed, my reading of the text and context shows that Jesus seems to fully anticipate his death, even before he sets out for Jerusalem, and as the anticipated time of it grows closer it weighs heavily on him.

Why go to the garden to pray? Jesus is reported frequently in scripture to go off by himself to pray. Going to the temple as the author suggests might have been closer, but it would not have been as private, not even early in the morning. Jerusalem was a beehive of activity in the days leading up to the passover.

Second, to suppose that Jesus, after rejecting the offering of all the kingdoms of the world at the beginning of his earthly ministry, would now seek power is ridiculous. Yes, Jesus did suggest to his disciples that they be prepared to buy a sword. And yes, perhaps even a real sword. But again, it is in the context of contrasting how they went forth on the last time that he sent them out. On that occassion when they went out they took nothing and yet lacked for nothing. Now Jesus wants them to be prepared for the struggle that awaits them. But the idea that he is planning to lead some sort of jihad against either Rome or the Jewish authorities can only come from the mind of those who think in terms of physical jihads, not just spiritual ones. It certainly is not on Jesus' mind. For when they left, the disciples said they had two swords, and Jesus said it was enough. Now, given the size of force easily massed by either the temple authorities or the Roman occupiers, two swords woud never have been considered sufficient for any sort of physical jihad.

And when his disciples use one of those swords, as is indicated, Jesus rebukes him. The article's author quoted Luke's account of the story. There is a little more insight gained from Matthew's account of the same incident:

Matthew 26
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Here we see that not only does Jesus rebuke them for using the sword, but gives a reason why. That reason is indeed based on the principles of peace. Further, Jesus asserts that if his intent was some sort of jihad, that he certainly does not need the disciples' swords to accomplish it. But he has not come for that purpose.

Jesus says that he understands his life to be a fulfillment of the scriptures regrading the Messiah, which he has previously explained as one in which the Messiah gives up his life sacrificially. Others at the time did not understand this to be the Messiah's role. There are even still those today who reject that idea, but this was Jesus' understanding. That is what is important.

So, why did Jesus ever suggest the need for a sword? Truly I don't know. The best anyone can do today is speculate. The article's author has made one set of speculations that he rejects as ever being true of Jesus, and thus they must be the later invention of Christianity. Well, that interpretation lies outside the rest of Christianity's understanding of Jesus, which even he admits is the dominant understanding. And it is inconsistant with the facts of the case. But if we are speculating, might it be that since the disciples are going to be left on their own, at least for a time no longer lacking in nothing (as Jesus makes that the context in which he suggested getting a sword to begin with) that the disciples (not Jesus) will need a sword for self-protection. Perhaps from robbers as they travel through the night? Or as with many tools, a sword is just a tool we (because of our violent nature) assume to be used for fighting, but it may also have other uses that are completely non-violent in nature? I think of the many uses I have for a machete when camping, none of which are violent to anything other than fish. Hmmm? These fishermen might use a sword the way I use my machete for preparing fish to cook. With Jesus knowing that he was about to be arrested and the disciples would be left on their own for a time, wouldn't that make sense. Incidently, the typical sword of that day was about the size of a modern machete.

The author wrote with the intent of exposing the hypocrisy of the modern-day Christian Evangelical's claim that the Musim scripture advocates violence. Well, it is a shame the so many Christians, in their naivette, are convinced that the Muslim scripture advocates violence when it is not present. But to then be guilty of the same sort of behavior in "exposing" it and accusing Christians of hypocrisy when the Christians scriptures do not advocate it any more than the Muslim scriptures, that is just as big of a shame. And the hyprocrisy is in the fact that the author even admitted that he didn't believe Christ ever advocated violence to begin with.


Lastly, I ask you to take a closer look at the wording of this portion of the article:

Peter, James, and John were all Galileans, and Galileans were renowned for two things: fishing and zealotry.

They were the fighting Irishmen of their day!

I am sorry, but this smacks of namecalling at the least, and downright bigotry as a possiblity. It is a slur against both Galileans and Irishmen.

Against Galilean in that they would be "renowned for two things". Really? So that's it? They had no other talents? How about the business acuem as the commercial crossroads of the region? How about their devotion to the word of God as they established synagogues for the study of God's word throughout? But no, just two things, fishing and zealotry.

If anyone was to say similar things about a group of people today, I think it would be taken as an insult. Best not say it to an Irishman, because an Irishman would pick a fight with you. Afterall, according to the author, fighting is the character of Irishmen, or so he has labelled them.

How does such language show the respect that is the rules governing this forum: "10. Racist remarks will not be permitted since racism doesn't hold a place in Islam."?

Passage One: “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. 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” (Matthew 10:34-37).

So if a Muslim converts to Christianity, what is the characteristic response of the family in places like Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

It is quite common to hear in the West the notion that Islam "was spread by the sword." Did you know that the word "sword" does not even appear in the Qur'an? It does however, appear in the Bible, 434 times!

Hardly a strong point. Historically Islam was, to a large extent "spread by the sword", something from which Christianity was hardly immune either. As to the respective Holy books, mentioning the "sword" or not, the Qur'an says (and it's by far from the only military reference)

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).

At least the Bible has the excuse that most of it's military references are historical and many of the New Testament 'sword' references purely metaphorical.

Why can't Hollywood make a movie that presents what the historical Jesus might have been like? Why? Because money talks! They get some guy of German or Swedish descent to play a Nazarene Jewish man of two thousand years ago and the public eats it up.

Can you imagine a Jewish actor with very Jewish physical features portraying Jesus?! There are American children who up until the age of puberty actually believe that Jesus' real name was "Jesus," that he was a white man with blue eyes, and that he spoke Queen's English!

Good point. To be fair, though, I think Mel did try as far as he could within the bounds of his own Catholicism and what people would actually come to see, and the result was a very powerful movie in many ways. As to what came before, that's Hollywood for you. Movies have to make money, and to do that they (generally) have to produce what people are expecting to see. That was probably more true in the past than now, though.. can you imagine what response 'Passion of the Christ' would have got in the 1950s?!

Greetings and peace be with you Grace Seeker; I feel you have given a good response. But I wonder if there is another explanation for the disciples carrying swords.

Jesus taught his disciples about the way God works, and his examples always seemed very practical and based on real situations. Supposing Jesus had told his disciples to leave all their swords behind and not take them to the Garden of Gethsemane.

When the soldiers came some of the disciples might have thought if only we had swords we could fight our way out of this. Even today if we had read these scriptures we might have wondered what the out come would have been if the disciples were all armed. We don't have those doubts because the disciples had swords

Just by one of the disciples using a sword to cut off an ear of his opponent we see in a real situation and we see how Jesus responds to violence.

Dying by a sword is not the worst thing that can happen to you. The bottom line is there is life after death, our lives are finally in the hands of God.

In the spirit of searching for peace on Earth

Eric

I always enjoy irrelevant statements like:

Did you know that the word "sword" does not even appear in the Qur'an?

Unless you want to go on the assumption that every Muslim is a good Muslim and only does what the Quran says it is pointless.
I find it astounding that anyone of any religion would even conceder it possible that no one person ever converted because of threat of death.
War has helped spread every religion, so has slavery. If that is not by the sword, then I don’t understand. Whether or not a religion advocates using violence to spread the faith it is not the only factor. The largest factor is what people do.
I also would find it astounding if some one would conceder it possible that the majority of conversions were not what was honestly felt in the hart.
But then I don’t subscribe to any “Party Line” and I’m just me being me.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba

Just because you think its impossible, doesnt mean it is.

huh???

format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba

Sorry i was talking to wilber :X

OK, so now I understand what your comment was in reference to.

Wilberhum made his statement in a negative form. But stating his comment positively, he is saying that he believes that there have been people who converted from one religion to another because they were threatened by death. He didn't say between which religions, just that he would be amazed if we didn't believe that the threat of death might have lead to some converstions. And we know that this is an historically true statement. Many Jews were converted to Christianity at the point of the sword during the Spanish Inquisition. So, surely, we can concede with him that this is a possibility, since we already know it to in fact be a reality. And given that, perhaps some others have converted between other faiths too? My guess is that some Christians converted to Roman paganism during the time of the persecutions. Don't you suppose that perhaps some Muslims might have converted to Christianity during the crusades or that some Christians might have converted Islam during the Moors occupation of Spain or the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium (modern day Istanbul), and that perhaps some of these were under the threat of death?

Yeah, I got that. So, I'm asking two new questions:

1) Do you consider it possible that perhaps some Muslims might have converted to Christianity during the crusades under the threat of death?
2) Do you consider it possible that perhaps some Christians might have converted to Islam during either the Moors occupation of Spain or the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium (modern day Istanbul) under the threat of death?

If you don't know for sure, do you consider it:

(a) highly probable?
(b) possible but not probable?
(c) highly improbably, but not impossible?
(d) absolutely impossible?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Hardly a strong point. Historically Islam was, to a large extent "spread by the sword", something from which Christianity was hardly immune either.

I am not sure where you get your "facts" from but maybe you should read this.
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=43087&ln=eng