Language Studies

Difficult Sayings

Not peace but a sword
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 ..." (Matthew 10:34, KJV)

The New York Times columnist William Safire commented earlier this year on Mel Gibson's film The Passion, depicting Jesus' violent death. He wrote about the violence of the film in contrast to expectations about Jesus bringing peace and the seasonal message we normally expect on Christmas cards at this time of year:

"Matthew in 10:34 quotes Jesus uncharacteristically telling his apostles: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." You don't see that on Christmas cards and it's not in this film, but those words can be reinterpreted - read today to mean that inner peace comes only after moral struggle." (Click here for the article)

It is Luke's gospel that gives us the famous and hopeful lines during Jesus' advent concerning "peace on earth..." (Luke 2:14) and the Messiah was predicted to be Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Indeed the Israel League of Former Christians^F1 cite Matthew's verse above as one of their reasons for rejecting Jesus as Messiah and this was the case for many first century Jews, Jesus did not bring peace from the Roman occupation or harmony on earth, therefore he could not be the Messiah.

This apparent contradiction is still a stumbling block even in the twenty-first century as witnessed by a humanist web page describing Matthew's saying as the seventh myth of Christmas:

THE SEVENTH MYTH OF CHRISTMAS - Christ preached peace and goodwill

The Christ of the Gospels is rather contradictory here. On the one hand, he exhorts the poor to turn the other cheek, while at the same time he says he has brought 'not peace, but a sword'. There would also be eternal punishment in hell, complete with 'wailing and gnashing of teeth, for those who refused to follow his teachings - "He that believeth not shall be damned". (http://nireland.humanists.net/handbk/12myths.html)

Jesus elsewhere advocated, "turning the cheek" (Matthew 5:39), and also blessed the "peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) so why does he appear to bring a sword here? Luke's parallel to Matthew's verse gives us a clue to what Jesus was actually talking about:

"Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth?
I tell you, not at all, but rather division" (Luke 12:51)

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34)

We can either see this as spoken distinctly on two separate occasions or one actual saying where Matthew has preserved the original 'sword' metaphor but which Luke has interpreted as a literal 'division'. It is likely to be just the one statement, as the Ethiopic version of Luke seems to have a combination, since it renders it by, "but a sword that I may divide".

Jesus is not speaking of a literal sword he is using it metaphorically as the writer of Hebrews 4:12, "the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit". The sword here represents 'division' as Luke clearly sees. Biblically, the sword is as much a symbol of truth, justice or division, as it is of judgement and war.

Furthermore, Matthew's context seems to see the saying as a fulfilment of Micah 7:6, the last line of which is directly reproduced in Matthew 10:36, indicating either Jesus or Matthew's intentional reference to Micah:

"For the son dishonours the father; the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies are the men of his own household." (Micah 7:6)

The later rabbis interpreted Micah 7:6 in the following words, demonstrating that they saw its fulfilment as indicative of the times of the Messiah:

"With the footprints of the Messiah presumption shall increase and death reach its heights ... children shall shame the elders and the elders shall rise up before the children, for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law, a man’s enemies are the men of his own house. The face of this generation is as the face of a dog, and the son will not be put to shame by his father" ^F2

So, even if the passage refers to familial division rather than warfare, we still have the problem of Jesus’ intent. Did he really come to break up families? What we have here is another instance of Hebrew outcome or effect being expressed as intent or cause. The effect of Jesus' coming would be to cause division as some chose to believe and follow while others did not, even splitting families in their allegiance. For a time, Jesus' own family were divided against him (John 7:5; Mark 3:21). His mission was to call people to faith in God but those that opposed that clarion cry would become enemies and not friends and Jesus foresees that this will split families as people are forced to make a choice between loyalty to God and that towards family. Jewish and Muslim objectors should remember that even Abraham was called to leave home and family to follow God (Genesis 12:1-3).

FOOTNOTES:
F1: See http://www.karaite-korner.org/light-of-israel/read_the_nt_1.shtml
F2: Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, 49b, cf Sanhedrin 97a

Copyright Statement
'Difficult Sayings' Copyright 2024© KJ Went. 'Difficult Sayings' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each article, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings.html  2) 'Difficult Sayings' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.