Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Nameless]

The bible repeatedly warns against division as well as promotes leadership by example as well as God stating in Proverbs 6:19 that “he that soweth discord among brethren.”(Seventh of the seven things mentioned) is an abomination to the Lord.

Yet Jesus states “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

As well as in Luke 12:51 ”Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

How do you reconcile this Problem? as it seems to be a Glaring Contradiction.

[jimwalton]

Not a contradiction at all. In this text (Matthew & Luke), by "not peace but a sword," Jesus meant that this would be effect of his coming, not that it was the purpose of his coming. His words came true in the early church and in the early missionary effort. Opposition was common, and families were at times in opposition to each other. Paul seems to have experienced opposition from his own family, and to know of people whose faith strained marriages and family relationships (1 Cor. 7.12-16).

In these words Jesus was warning his followers that their allegiance to him might cause conflict at home, and even expulsion from the family circle. It was well that they should be forewarned, so no one could ever say, "This isn't what I signed up for."

Mt. 10.34 lies in the middle of a text where Jesus is sending his followers out as preachers of righteousness in a rather hostile world. Though there will be some who are receptive to the message, there will be much hostile opposition and persecution as a backlash. He refers to and actually quotes from Micah 7.6-7, where it's the godlessness of the people has brought societal upheaval and family chaos. In verse 34 (of Matthew), he takes a prophetic stance similar to Elijah: he has come as a preacher of righteousness to a spiritually wandering people. He has come to restore, and the way to do that is confront people about their sin (as did Elijah, or to bring the sword of the Lord, as did Gideon). This coming of his would not be the restoration of Zion peace (prophesied in Isa. 2.4), but the stirring of God against a disobedient people. In v. 35-36 Jesus quotes from Micah to make the connection: he has come in righteousness to confront sin and to preach restoration to a people in exile, but the people will not hear or turn, just as in the days of Isaiah (6.9-13). We know that Jesus' own family turns against him (Mk. 3.21), as do his friends and townspeople (Lk. 4.14-30). He stirs up conflict only as Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the other prophets did. In this case, it's not an abomination (Prov. 6.19), but the word of the Lord. In Proverbs, the warning is against people who just cause trouble to cause trouble. In Matthew and Luke, it is the doing of good that results in some people supporting that good and others rejecting it, causing a division. So it's good not to cause trouble, but it's also good to do what's right, even if it causes trouble.

Not a glaring contradiction at all.

[Wolo]

This is pretty much how I look at it. Jesus came knowing that his coming would cause division and conflict and war. He knew that would be the effect and this is merely the expression of that.

[Nameless]

Thank you for that very thorough answer. Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the other prophets were not Jesus. The wording of the verses in Luke and Matthew don't sound like generic dissension; He's telling them why He has come, why He is there, not that confict will be a bi-product, but that it is the goal.

[jimwalton]

Actually, no. We can't just read his words out of context, taking this particular piece and treating it all by itself. As I said, Jesus is quoting Micah the prophet. He is not making a goal statement. In Matthew 10, Jesus is giving instructions to his disciples as he sends them out to do his work. He tells them where to go (to Jews), what to preach (the kingdom of heaven), and what they'll be empowered to do (heal, etc.). He lets them know that some people will be welcoming, and others will be rejecting.

Then Jesus launches into talk that is both present and prophetic. He's talking about them directly, but also about the future, and future persecution. He warns that they will be arrested, hated, and possibly killed. He warns that his message will create social unrest and at times a violent backlash. But don't be afraid, he counsels: No matter what happens to you here, you are safe for eternity.

Then in v. 32 we get to the paragraph where your verse is. His point is that the pressure may be intense, so the commitment will have to rise to the same level. They will actually have to follow in his path of suffering and persecution. It's in this context that he says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." He makes his point by quoting Micah 7.6, a verse about all the evils in the land and the untrustworthiness of even one's close relatives. There will be opposition to the truth from every quarter. His message will divide even the tightest relational ties. Verse 34 is explained by vv. 35ff.: The intensity of your commitment will have to supersede the intensity of the opposition, and any persecution you experience will be worth the reward you will receive afterwards.

We know that Jesus is speaking with this in mind. If we take what he is saying just in its bare sense, he is contradicting everything else he taught:
- I didn't come to bring peace
- My intent is to make people enemies of each other
- I expect you to hate your parents
- your life isn't worth anything

But none of this makes sense. It's clearly not what Jesus means by it. People had so many misunderstandings about Jesus—that he was coming to bring a life of ease, that he was going to kick out the Romans, and that he was interested in political office and military victory. In response he spoke in the strong language of hyperbole, prophecy, and proverbs. We have to read his words with that in mind, and in their context.

I hope that helps.

[Nameless]

Your theology seems sound in Matthew. He was framing that His message would bring conflict for both believers and unbelievers alike, as it most certainly did. I think I’m doing a poor job of asking this question, which is a regular problem for me, so my apologies. If you look in the same passage in Luke, Jesus is almost relishing in the fact that conflict will arise, and wishing it were already started. Jesus was mixing things up; he was a trouble maker; he didn’t seek to bring peace to the money changers either—it makes him in a way kind of a bad ass.

The issue I have with this is that the bible repeatedly states that causing divisions among people is a sin, and even an abomination, and if you’re striving to save all people from themselves, dividing them just seems counterproductive. If I asked any Christian if causing conflict that would break up families was a sin, they would quote the same verses that I have, and all issues of context would be irrelevant. However when part of the strategy involves Jesus and this sin, all of a sudden it’s perfectly fine.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

[jimwalton]

Great discussion! I'm really enjoying this, so thank you for the dialogue.

Luke's point (Lk. 14.25-35) is the same as Matthew's, both of them putting Jesus' words in the same context on this one, as is clear in Lk. 14.33: "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." The cost will be great, so the commitment needs to rise to a higher level. "Bearing one's cross" was not showing willingness to put up with some opposition and problems, but a self-sacrifice to the death. Jesus often warns his disciples of the choice they are making in following him.

It's interesting that Luke (14.25) mentions large crowds following Jesus. As you say, in a deliberate dramatic act of confrontation, he stirs the pot. I agree with you that Jesus was a pot-stirrer, and no push-over. Jesus never lets people adjust. The minute he perceives them in some kind of equilibrium, or a state where they think they're starting to catch on, he makes sure he hits them with a truck. Here he gets large crowds following him, and what does he say? Jesus looks at the crowd and gets skeptical, because he knows what he’s calling them to. They may never see their family again. There may be a ton of crosses out there. They may get beaten. You want to follow me?

Jesus uses hyperbole to confront them with the options. He pierces and stings with his words. He is calling into being a radical community of voluntary commitment, willing for the sake of its calling to go any distance and pay any price. People are fickle; people are lazy; people are set in their ways. Jesus won't have it. "You follow me, you weigh the cost and you pay it."

It's not that he was a trouble-maker, but more a Defining King. He knew exactly what his kingdom was like and what it took to be part of it. He knew the weaknesses of humanity and their justifications and compromises to get their own way while seeming to play along. So he speaks in bold hyperbole, smacking people off balance over and over. He speaks in parables to separate the truth seekers from the thrill seekers. He speaks in deep words to separate the serious followers from the tag-alongs. He's not so much making trouble as that he knows the truth: the way is hard and the road is narrow, and unless you know what you're signing up for, you'll fall by the wayside.

There is a common misunderstanding out there that all we have to do be fairly good people and we get to heaven. Jesus again and again takes every step necessary to destroy the vicious lie. It's not being good, or being religious, but dying to self and taking on the nature of Jesus, making us new creation, giving us a new nature, freeing us from the slavery of sin and setting us free in the newness of life. Religious people don't understand this. RELIGIONS don't understand this. Philosophers don't, most Americans don't. Against the crushing social vision of the American Way—the "good life" of weight loss, economic success, health, wealth, entertainment, life, liberty, happiness, and a plethora of rights—comes the call to forsake all, die to self, and to be remade with a new nature in the likeness of Jesus. It stands at the threshold of discipleship, and it's the only way. Against the American Way, it is incomprehensible. That is, most of us who hear the call, living as we do with our modern ideology, cannot relate it in any concrete or practical way to our own experience, education, and existence. We are not sure how it might be incorporated into our plans for living. The teaching of Jesus (that he who would save his life must lose it, Mk. 8.35-36) just "does not compute."

That's why Jesus speaks so strongly, knowing that every word he breathes will generate conflict in a society tearing at itself to live the good life. Yes, Jesus wishes it were already started (Lk. 12.49). The kingdom of God is not for the well-meaning and the comfortable-wishing, but for those who want to be remade in God's image. Jesus came to bring peace with God, to eradicate the barrier that sin creates so that individuals can be reconciled with God. Jesus came to bring peace within one's own soul, because unless one deals with all the inner turmoil that ruins life, one can't live with oneself. Jesus also came to bring peace between people, because as people discover what life is about, and live the way it was supposed to be lived in love, sharing, and selflessly taking care of each other.

But we all know, as did Jesus, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, in life as much as in physics. The good person gets torn down ("He's' just a goody-goody, a holier-than-thou. Let's get him!") There is great opposition to those who try to do what's right (they can mess up the whole system!). Jesus wasn't stupid. He knew his message of peace would cause great social unrest. In ways he relished it because the stir—the disequilibrium—is what can motivate people to think, and to change.

[Nameless]

Well, I must say as far as Theology and Apologetics you get a passing grade that’s very well done. I’m enjoying this too. Let me attempt to summarize your point to make sure that I understand it properly. Jesus knew good and well what he was doing, and he wanted to make sure that anyone following him would know that the "road" he was walking was both difficult and treacherous, and there would be opposition—hence the part shortly after Matthew 10:34 when all those folks hightailed it (another action I find rather odd). In His strategy He would shake things up in order stir the status quo and cause people to question the core message that the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Now if I understand this theologically, it would be that God is causing division between those with faith and those without, and not division within the Christian religion (that has not yet really gotten started). "Houses divided will not stand" and "separating sheep from goats" and all that. Jesus prayed for unity among the believers. There are several pleading attempts in the NT that try to remedy this, yet division not only persisted right from the very start, but splintered and grew right along with Christianity, and it continues to do so. If Jesus wanted to divide those with faith from those without, then then I’d say His approach was like cracking a walnut with a sledge hammer (or maybe throwing the baby out with the bathwater?). His very choice of technique of parables makes it open to much interpretation as time has come to pass and this makes it difficult to be consistently followed among the followers (or in my case), believed as divine. Unless, of course, the multiple denominations and splintered sub groups that make up Christianity are in fact what Jesus had in mind for which I may say that he didn’t need a sword, just a Bible.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, we're pretty close. Thanks again for the dialogue. People like their religion to be easy, comfortable, and to their liking. But I am not the architect of religious truth, and I am not the one who gets to design if God is, who God is, and what he is like. If God truly exists, He (or she) is who he (or she or it) is, and I have to learn what he is like. If Saturn exists, I don't get to decide what kind of planet it is; I need to discover the truth about it. So also with God. But people like to make their own gods, make up their own ideas about what they think God is or should be like. They want their god and their religion to be like a salad bar, where they get to create the recipe that suits their sensibilities. Jesus came to reveal what God was really like, and he knew it wasn't going to go over well. People don't like to be told, "This is what God is really like, deal with it." It's never a popular conversation. But if God really exists, and there really are eternal consequences to life, then somebody better speak up, shake what needs to be shaken, smack what needs to be smacked, and get the message through, because it matters. That's what Jesus was doing, and your first paragraph seems to grasp that. Kudos.

You're right that Jesus was not in any shape trying to create division within the Christian religion, which, as you said, was just being born. But Jesus was realistic. He said what he desired was unity, but what was going to happen was the parable he told in Mt. 13.24-30, 36-40. Here's the deal. If you're going to have an organism like a church, there are only two choices: Either you have requirements to get in, or you open your doors for one and all. Now, if there were requirements to get into church, people would scream bloody murder: "That's not fair! Just because I'm not (smart)(pretty)(black)(tall)(redhead)(Jewish)(etc.) I can't come in??? Well, forget you jerks!" But if there are no requirements, and we throw the doors open to one and all, now people scream bloody murder: "You have a bunch of idiots in there with you! There are hypocrites in there! There are people in there who think differently and they're always fighting!" Oh, you name it. Now what's fair? Do we only let certain ones in, or do we let just anybody in? Since the church is a spiritual hospital, we throw the doors open wide, and the problem is that a lot of sick people come in. That really is the idea, but, oh boy, what a problem that creates. We work for unity; we work for love; we teach forgiveness and kindness; we teach people to reach out to those in need. Lots do, lots don't. There are a lot of nice people in the church, and a lot of, um, others. It's what you get when your door is open wide for anyone to come in. It's really the way it should be: let everybody in, and do your best to help as many people as you can, and deal with it. It sets the Church up for criticism; it makes us look stupid, like we're fighting, stupid, and hypocritical. But it's easy to see the ones (the ones we're embarrassed about) that make the front page news without really seeing the millions behind them who are actually loving, helpful, and intelligent.

And what's with all the denominations? It means that Christians are thinking people, not lemmings. No different than law, politics, or economics—there are different ways of seeing things, and intelligent, well-meaning people can and do disagree. That's not a problem. Christians believe a core of dogma—it's what makes us Christian. But there are plenty of negotiable areas, and thinking Christians disagree about them. Fine. You guys worship Jesus over there by your convictions, and we'll worship Jesus over here by ours, but we're all still Christians, and we're all still friends, we just don't see eye-to-eye on these peripherals. That's not a problem. it's actually a strength in diversity. Some economists follow John Keynes and others radically disagree. So what? That doesn't discredit the whole idea of economics, nor do denominations discredit the church or Jesus.

It's just not possible, or even desirable, that every Christian should think exactly the same as every other. Can you imagine the criticism that would come then! But in the middle of all the diversity and disagreement there are some real nasty, hypocritical, and self-serving people that have come in the open door and are making us all look like idiots. I can't help that. Jesus said it would happen, and it has.

And what of the parables? Brilliant stuff. What better way to motivate people to think for themselves, interpret according to their own environmental, historical, and cultural situation, and create their own applications than with a story? As long as we honor the basic core—the person of Jesus and the salvation he came to bring—then there can be hundreds if not thousands of expressions of how we live that out, faithfully but diverse.

It's a real strength. Christianity can flourish in any culture in any era, whether you're young or old, male or female, slave or free, western or eastern, smart or not. You can live it shallow, you can live it deep. You can read it on the surface and love it, or you can dig it to huge depths. No matter. It works, it stands, it holds.

[Nameless]

When it comes to expressing your thoughts effectively I fear you may have the upper hand, very well written.

The church was built for the sinners and not for the saints, as it’s said. I think that’s a cornerstone of an all-inclusive church, or at least the goal anyway. I think it’s not hard to see that the degrees of inclusiveness run the gamut in churches, and especially here in America where Christianity is more of a Free enterprise than a religious institution, but that varies as well. It’s no surprise that Christians have this outlook—that’s why many subscribe to the great commission. But that attitude I believe (if it’s practiced) has a shelf life.

As an un-believer I get the luxury of seeing this first-hand. I go to church more than some Christians (about twice a month), where my wife is an active full (albeit rather new) member. Everyone is very nice, and they know that I’m not a member or a Christian. What they don’t know is the amount of time and thought that I’ve put into this decision (at least they don’t know yet). They are very big on evangelism, and the Great Commission is at the forefront of their doctrine and in everything that they do. I can almost feel them circling, just as my wife has done on many occasions, waiting for the right moment to try and convert me. I can’t hold it against them—I’d do the same I suppose, but their actions have ulterior motives, so I stay on my guard waiting for that moment which I do in fact welcome as I enjoy these kinds of discussions (although they can go badly). Right now I’m still considered a prospective convert (or re-convert) but, what happens after these conversations, I wonder? Will they “shake the dust off their feet” and consider me a lost cause? Will they protect their supposed righteousness for my apparent wickedness? Will they seek to purge the evil amongst them? (1corinthians 5:9-13 is a good support of Matthew 10:36 by the way). Only time will tell. The church is open to everyone, I agree, but only for a while, and I imagine the approaches and reactions to that will vary as well. That I’m guessing is when I will see that sword again.

You seem to make a good case for the differences of Christian types to be strengths. I still don’t really see anything like unity in this variation among believers, though. In the bible I see a want for “oneness” among believers, and I don’t see these divisions, as just un-believers in the churches causing strife and I’m sure you don’t either. I just see people who honestly believe that they are right and that God is on their side, and this causes friction. Now, the variety of the Christian faith can be seen as strength with parables and scripture being interpreted in different ways to make the faith bend to a group and grow its numbers swell as a whole, with certain doctrines being kept central. This would seem to harvest an inclusive culture and bring people together. Sometimes it’s that inclusion that’s used as leverage to stamp out any doubt.

Fear is a powerful thing, and the fear of being branded an apostate and excommunicated is a very real and scary reality. This makes the faith come from fear and not some existential truth (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are good examples of both division and variation of core doctrine, I would say). This looks like people being people. I see nothing divine in Christianity as a whole. For me this is one of the Bible's biggest red flags, as this is the same mechanic that works for Horoscopes, fortune cookies, astrology or many other “divinely inspired” books out there. It’s known as the "Forer Effect" or the "Barnum Effect". Now, it can seem rather amazing, looking at the faith and seeing a “something for everyone” type of vibe going on, and thinking that it has to be supernatural, but it does seem more like that salad bar you mentioned.