And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, "It is written, My House shall be called a house of prayer; but you are making it a robbers den." Matthew 21:12-13
OK Gondring,here is the written account of Jesus in the temple. What exactly is your question about it?
The fact that Jesus was angry? Yes, He was angry and He let the people involved know it!
Of course, He also told the apostles to buy swords.
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." Luke 22:36 They said, "Lord look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "That is enough."Luke 22:38
This conversation happened right before Jesus prayed and was arrested. I couldn't find any instructions where Jesus told them to use the swords, in fact when a disciple cut the ear off of the slave of the high priest, Jesus said to stop and Jesus reattached the ear!
Slight change of subject...
So Gondring,since Jesus told the disciples to carry swords (be armed), does that give the 2nd amendment even more credibility?
"So Gondring,since Jesus told the disciples to carry swords (be armed), does that give the 2nd amendment even more credibility?"
Hope so, since I believe that was the most effective man-carried military weapon at the time !
http://answering-islam.org.uk/index.html
Muslim apologists frequently quote Matthew 10:34, which mentions a sword, drawing a parallel between Christianity and Islam: Jesus and Muhammad both endorse jihad, so why would Christians today complain about it in Islam? However, this parallel is deadly flawed.
To explain more effectively how the two "Founders" differ, this article follows a particular method of exegesis (detailed analysis of a text). First, the historical context of the two verses is explained, so their meaning can be made clear. Second, the literary context—the verses surrounding the two targeted verses—is quoted or summarized, so we do not look at the two verses in isolation. Third, we discuss any important elements within the verses, such as key words. Finally, we will then be in a position to contrast the two verses at the end of the article, applying them to today.
We take Quran 9:123 as our counter-verse to Matthew 10:34 because, as we will see, both share the context of family relations.
9:123 "O you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous." (Fakhry’s translation)
The historical context of this verse takes place after a military expedition in early 630, so it is late in Muhammad’s life (he dies of a fever in AD 632). Some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura (chapter) to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones. During the military expedition, Muhammad led a large army of 30,000 soldiers to the northern city of Tabuk in order to confront the Byzantine Christians. This is clearly a Muslim Crusade, centuries before the European Crusades. The Byzantines failed to show up, so Muhammad’s Crusade was fruitless, except he managed to extort a tax from northern tribes for the "privilege" of living under Islam, that is, for not being attacked again. After the Muslims returned, Muhammad scolded the "hypocrites" who had stayed behind and failed to support him. Then he turns to those people who stirred up strife in the community by expressing doubt in Muhammad’s revelations; they needed to be silenced. This latter groups is whom he attacks in 9:123—the "unbelievers." He may wage war on them, without flinching.
Another aspect of the historical context should be considered. Muhammad urges his fighters forward in order to kill the unbelievers, even if the latter belong to the fighters’ own family, as seen in the words "near you" in v. 123, which may imply a relational nearness as well as a geographical one. Be that as it may, the Muslim commentator S. Abdul A’la Maududi informs us:
The Command [to fight] has been repeated at [the] end [of Sura 9] in order to impress on the Muslims the importance of the matter and to urge them to do Jihad and crush these internal enemies, without paying the least regard to the racial, family, and social relations that had been proving a binding force with them.
It is clear, then, that Muslims should not pay even "the least regard to the ... family ... relations," a "binding force" that had encumbered the expansion of Islam. Muslims have been ordered, therefore, to fight their family members in a physical way, in other words, to hit them with sharp swords. Why does Muhammad order this? According to Maududi, it is to "crush these internal enemies."
The literary context of 9:123 shows strife with those refusing to support or even opposing Muhammad. For example, in verse 121 Muhammad complains that the hypocrites do not spend any money in Allah’s cause (code for fighting), so Allah will recompense them accordingly. Next, Muhammad instructs his troops in verse 122 that not all Muslims should go out on a campaign of jihad, but some should stay behind to teach Islam, so they may warn people to beware of evil. Finally, in the verses after 9:123 Muhammad condemns the unbelievers for mocking his revelations. Thus, the literary context does not consist of peace and friendship with Muhammad’s opponents, and that is why he goes on the warpath and to deal with them harshly in 9:123.
The elements within 9:123, the third step in our exegetical method, yield two hard truths. First, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (three-consonant root is q-t-l), which always means physically fighting and killing and warring—no other meaning is available. This word is usually stronger than jihad (three consonant root is j-h-d), which Muhammad uses in 9:73, a companion verse to 9:123:
9:73 "O Prophet, fight [j-h-d] the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Their abode is Hell, and what a terrible fate!" (Fakhry)
Thus, jihad and qital can barely be distinguished, since the means (swords) and the goal (submission or death) of fighting are the same in both verses. These two verses alone should lay to rest forever the frequent claim that jihad means only a spiritual struggle against sin in the soul. Second, not only does Muhammad say that his jihadists should fight the unbelievers (and hypocrites in verse 73), but the Muslim warriors should do so harshly or sternly. This lends a severity to the verse which is difficult to take in—along with the eternal fate of the unbelievers, which is very, very often stated in the Quran in exactly the same way as verse 73 states it—short and quick and severe.
We turn now to Matthew 10:34.
Many Muslims assert that Jesus either wielded a physical sword, or he endorsed a holy war, of sorts. Thus, he is not different from Muhammad—and the latter prophet is better than Jesus. They say this to defend tacitly their prophet from any accusation of violence. But this is completely wrong.
Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword."
The historical context, we should recall, is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the "lost sheep of Israel," not yet to the gentiles, who will be reached after the Resurrection. It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. Second, he predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city (not attack the people or the authorities, which Muhammad does to his Meccan persecutors). Third, it is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this new sect or "Jesus movement" (as sociologists of the New Testament call it), so they resist it. Does this mean, then, that Jesus calls for a jihad with a physical, military sword against his fellow Jews—say, against his own family who wanted to take custody of him because they thought he was "out of his mind" (Mark 3:21)?
These cultural facts explain the literary context, which shows division among family members. The literary context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of "sword" in Matthew 10:34 (bold print):
32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6]
37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word "sword," and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). It is only natural that Matthew, the traditional author of the most Jewish of the Gospels, would include a pericope (a unit or section) like 10:32-39. Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently.
I have no question about it... I was just pointing out that it was more than "words alone" that Jesus used in the temple. He kicked some butt. This contradicts the post to which I was responding.
The fact that Jesus was angry? Yes, He was angry and He let the people involved know it!
Hmmm... if I'm not mistaken, that's the New American Standard translation you're quoting above.
So Jesus was angry, you say? Interesting how that fits in with the way the New American Standard translates Matthew 5:22...
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Admittedly, it's better than the NIV, but still leaves the problem of a "guilty" Jesus.
I couldn't find any instructions where Jesus told them to use the swords, in fact when a disciple cut the ear off of the slave of the high priest, Jesus said to stop and Jesus reattached the ear!
Right. I know of no such passage where He instructs them to use the swords. Who knows for sure why that comment was made--I've heard it was just to warn them that they would all be under the gun...I mean sword...soon. But we don't know for sure.
In fact, it's a mystery why Jesus actively resisted the moneychangers yet allowed Himself to be captured and executed--quite a change of tactics. Was not His body a temple? Why not protect it from desecration, if we're to be consistent? An interesting puzzle.
So Gondring,since Jesus told the disciples to carry swords (be armed), does that give the 2nd amendment even more credibility?
I think the 2nd Amendment needs no "credibility" from the Bible, as it stands on its own. However, if you are asking whether this verse helps to convince modern Christians that guns are not evil, then the answer is "yes". Many Christians these days have grown up with the idea that Jesus' ministry was purely anti-militant, anti-violence, and therefore, by extension, anti-weaponry. Well, if one is to believe active resistance is allowed, then weaponry makes sense.