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.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Christian Life, Q&A, Social Issues, Violence
Topics: Enemy-Loving Non-Violence
Verse: Matthew 10
Related Reading
Don’t Wilberforce’s achievements refute your stance on the separation of faith and politics?
Question: William Wilberforce was a Christian whose passionate involvement in politics almost single-handedly brought an end to the slave trade in 19th century England. Don’t his achievements show the importance of Christians being involved in politics, thus refuting your contention that Christian’s should keep their faith and values separate from politics? Answer: First, while I…
What is the significance of Matthew 26:39?
Jesus threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” Scripture indicates that much about the life and death of Jesus Christ was foreordained and thus foreknown long before it came to pass. Given that this…
Thank You Obama for Denouncing “Christian” Violence: It is Actually Far Worse Than ISIS
Picture Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza It seems some conservative Christians are up in arms because of something Obama said at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday. After condemning ISIS and religiously-motivated violence in general, the president added: Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other…
How do you respond to Romans 11:36?
“For from him [God] and through him and to him are all things.” Calvinists sometimes cite this doxology as evidence that Paul believed that every single event in world history was from, through and for God. In light of the fact that the verses leading up to this doxology address God’s genuine frustration with Israel’s…
How do you respond to 1 Kings 13:2–3?
The Lord proclaims against the pagan alter of Jeroboam, “O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘A son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who offer incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.’ He…
Isn’t Open Theism outside of historic orthodoxy?
The Church has never used one’s view of divine foreknowledge as a test for orthodoxy. And while the open view has always been a very minor perspective, it has had its defenders throughout Church history and it has never been called “heresy” (until in mid 1990s when some started using this label). According to some…