We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

What did Jesus mean when he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34)?

Given Jesus’ uniform teaching about loving enemies and abstaining from violence, and given that his followers were known for their refusal to engage in violence for the first three hundred years of church history, it’s obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying he came so that his disciples would use swords. The context of Jesus’ comment makes his intent clear. He’s speaking hyperbolically about how following him will (sadly) bring division, even among families. Yet it’s vital disciples not disown Christ, even when their families turn against them.

Here’s the whole passage (Mt 10:33- 38)
“But whoever publicly disowns me I will disown before my Father in heaven. 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— your enemies will be the members of your own household.’

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

The context makes it clear that “the sword” is a hyperbolic way of referring to divisions — especially among people who are normally closely bonded (family members). Because Jesus demands total allegiance, including allegiance over family, he will bring division. Yet, it’s crucial his followers never deny him because of the pain it causes, for this is simply the cost of discipleship.

He’s come to bring a sword. Prepare to sacrifice for your commitment to follow him.

But part of this commitment includes honoring his teachings and example of never using a literal sword.

Related Reading

If God shouldn’t get blamed when free agents do evil, why should he be thanked when they do good?

Scripture tells us that every good gift comes from God the Father who “does not change like shifting shadows” (Ja 1:17).  I interpret this to mean that God is always good and that he’s always working for good. In all circumstances, Paul said, “God is working for the good” (Rom. 8:28). We live and move…

How do you respond to Romans 9?

The Deterministic Interpretation of Romans 9 Many people believe that Romans 9 demonstrates that God has the right and power to save whichever individuals he wants to save and damn whichever individuals he wants to damn. I’ll call this the “deterministic” reading of Romans 9, for it holds that God determines who will be saved…

What about the Gospel of John and Calvinism?

Question: The Gospel of John seems to teach that people believe because God draws them, rather than that God draws people because they believe. If this is true, how can you deny the Calvinistic teaching that salvation is based on God’s choice, not ours? Answer: As you note, many people find support for the view…

How do you respond to Isaiah 53:9?

Speaking of the suffering servant Isaiah says, “[T]hey made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich…” As with most evangelical exegetes, I believe that Isaiah 53 constitutes a beautiful and stunning prophetic look at the person of Jesus Christ. The most impressive feature of this prophecy is that the suffering servant…

How do you respond to Matthew 21:1–5?

Jesus commanded his disciples, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this: ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately” (vs. 1-4). Though this verse…

Topics:

What is the significance of Hosea 8:5?

The Lord asks, “How long will they [Israel] be incapable of innocence?” The Lord’s continual striving with Israel regarding their lack of innocence suggests that this question was not merely rhetorical. If God knows the future to be eternally settled, however, he could not in earnest ask this (or any other) question about the future.…

Topics: