Did Jesus Teach the Value of Family?

[JoeMama]

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 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--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

Did Jesus really say this, or was Matthew making this up?

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't think so. I'll check but I think Luke has this as well but not Mark. That makes it what I call "Q" material. Not synoptic original, but imported from another document. But more significant is the "Who is my father and my mother?" That to me shows that the NT places the religious group above the family. sure if the family is used to promote the religious group, that's fine, but many have told stories of what happens if any of the family look like leaving the club.

Luke 12. 53 The 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.

We also have letting the dead bury the dead, and even give all you have and follow me. The group is above everything, family, friends, possession and bank account.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]


Many Jews believed the Messiah's arrival would usher in a new age of peace and prosperity to Israel. They must have been sorely disappointed to hear Jesus teaching just the opposite.

In his efforts to pressure Israelites into accepting him as their savior and God’s representative on Earth, he warned that on his second coming that there would be hell to pay by those who dragged their feet in rejecting him as their messiah. He referred to the effect of his ministry as bringing a “sword,” figuratively speaking, and tells his disciples he has come to promote enmity between fathers who loved Jesus, and sons who did not, and likewise mothers versus daughters. He wasn’t here to promote peace. Not at all.

Below are the words Jesus spoke, as he encouraged his disciples to divide families, pitting those family members who would follow him against those who would not. At least, that’s what Matthew declares is the gospel truth.

"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…"

Matthew 10:34-35

Did Matthew make this story up? He was known, you know, to invent stories about the contemporary “Jesus” that seemed to be fulfillments of what he thought (hoped?) were Old Testament “prophecies” about the expected coming of the “messiah,” Jesus.
In this case, the Old Testament “prophecy” Matthew thought foretold an event in the life of Jesus, is the one found in Micah 7:6:
For son dishonors father, Daughter rises against her mother, Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man’s enemies are the men of his own household.

Does the Matthew text describe a peace-loving Jesus, or a jealous instigator of family conflict?

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD is a jealous God.
Exodus 34:14

[JehovahsWitness]

DID JESUS PROMOTE THE BREAKDOWN OF FAMILY UNITY?

No Jesus taught explicity that marriages could not be annulled (except on the grounds of adultery) and urged his disciples to be peacemakers at all times, showing love to all.

MATTEW 10:34-36

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword [/i](also translated as "trouble," "conflict," "division," and "war"). 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 Even members of your own family will be your enemies.’

Jesus was not here suggesting his followers would initiate division but he was being realistic, not everyone would react favorably to what he was teaching. The Watchtower magazine Octobre 15, 2007, puts it this way ...

" Of course, Jesus’ motive was to proclaim God’s message of truth, not to damage relationships. (John 18:37) Still, holding faithfully to Christ’s teachings would be challenging if one’s close friends or family members rejected the truth. ... Jesus included the pain of family opposition as part of the suffering that his followers must be willing to endure. (Matt. 10:38)

Jesus promoted good relations with everyone, including ones unbelieving relatives but he recognised that a division of beliefs, a metaphoric "sword" was an inevitable consequence of not everyone accepting his teachings. His followers would always be peacemakers but it would be OTHERS (sometimes members of their own family) would make themselves "enemies" by their own negative , even at times violent, reaction to the peaceful Christian position.


JW


RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus predictions amount to instructions for his disciples to turn against their family and friends?
viewtopic.php?p=1077076#p1077076

Did Jesus teach his followers to hate their families?
viewtopic.php?p=921209#p921209

Is it Jehovahs Witness policy to abandon their families ?
viewtopic.php?p=1077059#p1077059

Do JWs view shunning a legitimate motive for divorce ?
viewtopic.php?p=1032193#p1032193

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FAMILY , MARRIAGE and ... DIVORCE

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]


Many Jews believed the Messiah's arrival would usher in a new age of peace and prosperity to Israel. They must have been sorely disappointed to hear Jesus teaching just the opposite.

In his efforts to pressure Israelites into accepting him as their savior and God’s representative on Earth, he warned that on his second coming that there would be hell to pay by those who dragged their feet in rejecting him as their messiah. He referred to the effect of his ministry as bringing a “sword,” figuratively speaking, and tells his disciples he has come to promote enmity between fathers who loved Jesus, and sons who did not, and likewise mothers versus daughters. He wasn’t here to promote peace. Not at all.

Below are the words Jesus spoke, as he encouraged his disciples to divide families, pitting those family members who would follow him against those who would not. At least, that’s what Matthew declares is the gospel truth.

"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…"

Matthew 10:34-35

Did Matthew make this story up? He was known, you know, to invent stories about the contemporary “Jesus” that seemed to be fulfillments of what he thought (hoped?) were Old Testament “prophecies” about the expected coming of the “messiah,” Jesus.
In this case, the Old Testament “prophecy” Matthew thought foretold an event in the life of Jesus, is the one found in Micah 7:6:
For son dishonors father, Daughter rises against her mother, Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man’s enemies are the men of his own household.

Does the Matthew text describe a peace-loving Jesus, or a jealous instigator of family conflict?

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD is a jealous God.
Exodus 34:14

Since you raise the point, yes; I think Matthew did make stories up and demonstrably so. He had a gospel - text that he used in common (somewhat) with Mark and Luke but he added to that as (demonstrably) did Luke, and in fact Mark, who is NOT the original synoptic gospel. Which is apparently lost.

That said, the rest of your post raises this question (if not a problem) that Jesus , as a result of his first coming, let alone the second, was going to usher is some seriously nasty stuff. hinting at what happens in a divided society. Which interestingly is not what we really got in the Jewish war (which is often thought to be what they were getting at) but the ideological divide between Pagan and Christian Romans.

That of course cues the Bible apologists to argue events yet to come, as they have done even since 1000 AD (the first Millennium panic ) and I'd prefer to leave the debate to them.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]

JoeMama wrote,

Jesus said, "I came not to send peace."

Where in the Bible does Jesus say or imply the opposite, that he did indeed come to bring peace? If the answer is, Nowhere, then we should accept the plain meaning of his statement, which is, that he came to sow discontent in families. Divide and conquer them.

Other verses may say or imply that Jesus came to bring peace, but such verses would just be evidence that the Bible contradicts itself, and therefore cannot trusted in any of its teachings, including, for example, teachings about salvation.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to JoeMama in post #3]

Are there any active inerrantists in this forum?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JoeMama in post #3]

Are there any active inerrantists in this forum?

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. - Wikipedia

It seems the definition of an "inerrantists" is somewhat flexible but by the above definition I suppose I would be defined as one.

I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]

JoeMama wrote,

Jesus said, "I came not to send peace."

Where in the Bible does Jesus say or imply the opposite, that he did indeed come to bring peace? If the answer is, Nowhere, then we should accept the plain meaning of his statement, which is, that he came to sow discontent in families. Divide and conquer them.

Other verses may say or imply that Jesus came to bring peace, but such verses would just be evidence that the Bible contradicts itself, and therefore cannot trusted in any of its teachings, including, for example, teachings about salvation.

No promise of peace, not for everyone else. This to me is simply the (Christian) writers using the Jewish war as an argument that the Jews had it coming and I think a reference to the trouble the Christians were getting from the authorities. Both Matthew and Luke have passages using that as a 'prophecy'. But I see no preaching or teaching other than to put the religious group ahead of the family, even though I suspect that Jesus' mission was very much a family affair.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeMama in post #3]

Are there any active inerrantists in this forum?

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. - Wikipedia

It seems the definition of an "inerrantists" is somewhat flexible.

It is.As if often the case, meanings before words. Rather than wish a definition on inerrantist and flip it about so however the term is used it can be claims as wrong, I'd say how it is being used.

three defs.
1. The Bible has no errors It is mortal misunderstanding
3. It has some mistakes and wrong things but they are metaphorically true (whatever that means - I say it means 'Not true at all')
2. The Bible has errors but they crept in later (copyist errors) but what is important in the Bible claims is reliable.

There are of course two main groups...no, three.

a) fundamentalists The Bible has no real errors.People misunderstand it. This is just science denial, which is why they want to replace the science books with the Bible
b) Apologists. The ones who try to make the Bible untruths work. Obvious things like the debate between the discrepant nativities and the 2nd census apologetic, or just the 2 donkeys thing. It'sevident that Matthew iover -thought that one and misread the scripture.The other three just copy it down and don't make the error. What happens? We get excuses about there could have been two animals and the others just don't mention the colt trailing along behind. This excuse of 'not bothering to mention' wears vert thin and hardly wears at all with biggies like no mention of a transfiguration.

This is a bit lengthy but Apologetics to explain away Bible downers is what these debates are really about.
c) the ones that swallow the wrong things (the Eden scenario is usually the one to go) but 'the rest is ok'. But we have left inerrancy and are in Cafe Christianity.