Matthew 10:34-36

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 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. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household"


This has always puzzled me. Seerms very contradictory. Jesus was meant to bring peace and harmony, but here we see that the goal was to bring discord and disharmony and violence.

I hope someone can explain.

a reply to: Ectospasm
The ones who did not follow Jesus would reject the ones who did, sometimes with violence.
So he would cause "division" just by being there.

a reply to: Ectospasm

As DISREALI said, ones who followed the teachings of Christ back then were rejected by the religious leaders and alot of their own people.
It is also the same today in alot of families who are devout followers of another religion when a family member converts to christianity. In example, with many areas in the middle east that are predominately muslim, if a family member converts to christianity, they may be rejected, ostracized, beaten, or even killed. Thus bringing a division amongst even those in a family.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Ectospasm
The ones who did not follow Jesus would reject the ones who did, sometimes with violence.
So he would cause "division" just by being there.

Well said Disraeli!

It is a little disconcerting for me to see this taking place in our time, and in MY family.

My strength to get through all this rests in Jesus!

I have found this verse concerning and confusing myself.

It's interesting to note that his followers expected an earthly king as opposed to a spiritual one. He was supposed to make Israel the super power of the world....at least they thought.

Was this an intentional misleading statement?

There are many darker sayings of Jesus which do see light in the more happy clappy churches . Take the 7 evil spirits by example. Why would it be a problem or an issue to take peoples souls into heaven , it wouldnt and there wouldnt be much to talk about either .
The problem and the issue he deals is that of human sins and hell . The overall admonishment is clear - you do not want to suffer God's fury on his periodic returns . All the prophets , the genuine ones , had this admonishment in mind , including David and Solomon , . The Pauline parts of the bible (including the gospel of John showing evidence of tampering) are mostly those of post-Jesus imposters , making up false miracle stories and obsuring the obvious message , built up concurrently over hundreds of years . Without them there though , there wouldnt be much of a new testament to speak of , or any particular christian churches , this is why mohammed ignored the christains and continued the admonishment theme .

What I want to add is that God or not , this is life , and that clear admonishment and exhortation to moral restraint and good conduct with clear conscience , on pain of certain types of living hell , including that before death , is a theme concurrent on all religions of lasting value , because that it is true .
Over the years and years it has been repetitively proven - good moral conduct begets a blessed life , wrong and dank behaviours get you in big trouble , sometimes straight away , ask the prison warders , etc.
It , this principle , is true to the extent of allowing attachment of scientific proof :
what the prophets did and said then put them in this new light , they are more easily understood , when the rest of humanity gets this idea , this world should turn the right way up again , I'll go out a limb : it will do

originally posted by: Ectospasm
Jesus was meant to bring peace and harmony.

He will only bring peace after the entire planet has been cleansed of all evil-doers that choose the Mammon rather than Jesus.

originally posted by: Ectospasm

I hope someone can explain.

There's no peace for the flesh.

The flesh is supported and maintained by violence against other living things that are also in the flesh.

Jesus' kingdom is in the world of the spirit.

There, and only there, is there peace.

Peace on earth, is transitory, fleeting, and illusory.

Maybe you ate a fine meal of steak today, without doing any violence, so didn't think anything of it.

But, someone killed that animal, so you might enjoy its flesh.

The illusion, is that the meal was peaceful. Probably because you enjoyed pleasant conversation during the meal with your friend.

But, if you were the animal whose flesh was flayed off your bones, you'd have a different opinion of that meal.

a reply to: Ectospasm

First of all, always remember that the Bible was written by men and therefore open to potential mistranslation or miscommunication from the original message.

Secondly, Jesus was not necessarily meant to bring "peace and harmony." He was meant to bring spiritual growth. Jesus challenged the Jewish establishment and the Roman paganism. Peace and harmony are a consequence of that growth coming to a culmination. As you can clearly see by looking at the state of human affairs, we are not there yet. But remember that spiritual evolution doesn't operation on human time.

This is not so hard to understand. It is a prophecy about how they would treat the followers of Jesus. Indeed as Jesus also said, many would kill his followers thinking they were doing a service to God. Even the apostle Paul started out this way.

Then the Roman empire viciously persecuted Christians for 300 years until the time of Constantine and indeed, families were broken up along the lines of those who supported emperor worship and those who supported a pure worship of God. Later Christians were persecuted by catholic church and by Islam and are still persecuted to this day.

Becoming a Christian can be very divisive to those who are still caught up in the demon controlled philosophies of this world. Try becoming a vocal Christian on a modern US university campus or in Dearborn Michigan.

I went through a Christian phase; I wanted to know what would happen if I followed Jesus' teachings as he said them. Practicing forgiveness, nonviolence, and so on. Any red letters in the New Testament were my entire consultation on existence. And the fact is that as soon as I started being absolutely as kind to everyone as I possibly could, people started treating me like I was covered in syphilis sores and MRSA. Eventually, a kid started smashing my head against the wall every day, and I stopped turning the other cheek and telling people that being nice and charitable will make their lives better. Capitalist Christianity hates that s***.

The treatment Jesus received according to the Christian mythology at the time of the Matt. 10:34 statement indicate that he would have been aware of the abuse that living against society's standards entails. Other social revolutionaries of that time period in the Roman empire faced similar persecution. When Jesus said that he brings not peace but a sword, he meant indeed that society would violently reject his follower's behavior (preaching against the Roman political machine, poverty, populist teachings), but not because of their association with Jesus as a religious figure, but because the practices and beliefs espoused by him and his followers ran entirely contrary to the wishes of the Roman government and state religion.

a reply to: Ectospasm


Some review,

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword,

Ephesians 6:17

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

Revelation 19:21
And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Revelation 2:16
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Jeremiah 25:16
And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them.

Ezekiel 28:23
For I will send into her pestilence, and blood into her streets; and the wounded shall be judged in the midst of her by the sword upon her on every side; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

Amos 9:10
All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.

Psalms 17:13
Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:

Job 5:15
But he saveth the poor from the sword, from their mouth, and from the hand of the mighty.

Psalms 59:7
Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear?

Proverbs 12:18
There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health.

Proverbs 25:18
A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.
-----

Ask yourself why swords and mouths are used together so often, and then ask yourself when a sword isn't a sword, but sometimes it is.

The reason Jesus "said" he came to bring a sword, just may be because Rome DID bring the sword to Judea, their essential arch nemesis.

If Jesus says he came to bring the sword himself it becomes a prophecy fulfilled and a reason to believe Jesus was some kind of Roman sympathizer who wanted Rome to destroy the Temple and prepared his followers to believe he sanctioned it.

Rome adopting the Jewish religion was one of the strangest things to ever happen and mirrors Paul's takover from the apostles, taking your enemies beliefs and making a farce of it then unleashing it on the world to spread misery and contention, genocides made justifiable by literally interpreting the genocides of the Tanakh on a worldwide scale.

Jesus coming to bring a sword was probably very useful for justifying thes endeavors to convert forcefully or peacably, convert either way.

Paul provides the justification of any sin, or a reason to commit what is covered by grace through the blood of Christ anyway to the saved who only need to repent to a clergymen.

You could say, the message of the Church was either spread by the word, or by sword, and be telling the truth.

a reply to: Joshuabennone

That's one way to look at it,

Another way to look at it would be to not put 2017 mentality into roman culture, at the time those words were supposedly said, a roman converting to follow Christ or even a Jew following Christ for that matter would of certainty had the possibility of separating you from your family. In order to truely follow god, you must turn away from the ways of man, which could possibly turn you away from your family.

Simply put when your entire family is praying to Jupiter and you start talking about the One God, there would of been separation in your family 2000 years ago as someone living in Rome, you might not see it now because of the part of the world you are in, but the part of the world Jesus was in, obviously wasn't kind to his way of thinking, but his words range true, and they did tear mother from daughter and son from father...... just put your mind 2000 years ago.

You being close to your family isn't important if it prevents you from being close to God, there is no need for a physical sword, the word will cut you free.

Know God as God knows God.

a reply to: fatkid


It would be more wise not to assume that Romans weren't sophisticated and couldn't think like us geniuses with our super powers.

The thing is that was an ancient Roman mentality, they accomplished engineering buildings we could not reproduce today and contributed to literature more than any previous culture we know about, though that could be because the previous generations was destroyed or not preserved, it matters little because they were definitely capable of doing what I said, a simple matter of putting words in Jesus mouth. It is a virtual certainty that it happened at some point in the Gospels, probably many.

originally posted by: Ectospasm
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 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. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household"


This has always puzzled me. Seerms very contradictory. Jesus was meant to bring peace and harmony, but here we see that the goal was to bring discord and disharmony and violence.

I hope someone can explain.

Not that I believe Jesus was actually a historic figure, nevermind the son of god, it doesn sound like the rantings of someone mightily p'd off....

a reply to: Ectospasm
Jesus is the "Prince of Peace" (promised at Isa. 9:6) that will restore peace to the world soon and taught Christians to be peaceable, etc.* (in loyal service to his God Jehovah, who also happens to be his Father and the "God of Peace"; Phil. 4:9). *: checkout the different usages and subtleties in meaning for the word "peace" and related words in the bible. The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE. Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, and the greatest and most fundamental facts relate to God, his existence, his invincible purpose, his ways. Understanding enables the person to relate the knowledge he acquires to God’s purpose and standards, and thereby he can assess or evaluate such knowledge. Proverbs 1:1-6 shows that the “man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction, to understand a proverb and a puzzling saying, the words of wise persons and their riddles.” These must not be things said merely to pass the time away in idle conversation, for wise persons would not customarily waste time in such manner, but must refer to instruction, questions, and problems that discipline and train the mind and heart in right principles, thereby equipping the learner for wise action in the future. (Compare Ps 49:3, 4.) Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is “the prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Pr 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Pr 17:24; see WISDOM.) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1Ti 6:3-5.

At the time Jesus was talking about the subject you quoted from him though he was talking about another subject than what I just mentioned above when I used the phrase "peace to the world" (he was using the word "peace" in a different manner with a slightly different meaning and referring to something else specifically). Therefore he wasn't contradicting what I said at the start of this comment, he just used the word "peace" with a different nuance of meaning (and timingwise, describing a present and ongoing effect in relation to the subject he was talking about in that chapter, which the first responses in this thread have something to say about). Context is always key in understanding the bible. That's why I recommend clicking the link below to see what's behind the ... that's indicating that I skipped something.
Prepared to Preach Despite Persecution | Life of Jesus:

...
The message Jesus’ disciples preach will divide households, some family members accepting it and others not. “Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth,” Jesus explains. Yes, it takes courage for a family member to embrace Bible truth. “Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me,” Jesus observes, “and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.”—Matthew 10:34, 37.

Yet, some will receive his disciples favorably. He says: “Whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward.”—Matthew 10:42.

Well-equipped with Jesus’ instructions, warnings, and encouragement, the apostles head out “through the territory from village to village, declaring the good news and performing cures everywhere.”—Luke 9:6.

- Jesus provides what warnings for his disciples?

- What encouragement and comfort does he give them?

- Why do Jesus’ instructions also apply to us today?

Those questions also relate to the rest of the article. Here's some more to think about.
Highlights From the Book of Matthew:

10:34-38—Is the Scriptural message to be blamed for family rifts? Not at all. Rather, rifts are caused by the position taken by unbelieving family members. They may choose to reject or oppose Christianity, bringing about divisions in the family.—Luke 12:51-53.

Of course some people are not seeking for understanding, they much prefer to view the bible as contradicting itself and cherry-pick verses accordingly followed by simply ignoring or talking past what the first 2 responses already indicated (already demonstrated by some posters in this thread), which were nice and succinct, but allow for continuing to pretend or convince oneself that the bible is contradicting itself or isn't entire clear on this broader subject of "peace", that it's open to interpretation and people deluding themselves with those and perhaps in some cases viewed as convenient cop-outs; I hope my details demonstrate that the first 2 responses are not a cop-out or an insufficient answer* to the challenge of the preferred way of seeing a contradiction or something that supposedly doesn't make enough sense, not clear, ambiguous). I hope I phrased that ending of that sentence in an understandable manner. *: although TheSilverGate was talking about a different subject than Jesus was emphasizing there, Jesus was talking about those who are closest to us, family members, whereas TheSilverGate tried to apply the verse to religious leaders, there are plenty of other verses that address the behavioral phenomena of religious leaders, the one quoted in the OP is not one of them. DISRAELI's response was likewise a bit too broad(or vague, not addressing the same specific subject that Jesus was addressing). So there are some issues with those answers, but they did get these concepts right: division and rejection. In that sense, the answers are sufficient for understanding that the bible or Jesus is not contradicting any of his other teachings or that the bible is vague/unclear about this subject of "peace", open and vulnerable to personal delusional interpretation, "concerning and confusing", "intentional misleading statement?"(phrased rhetorically), etc. The paint job bible critics like to paint on the bible and those who use it as their source for the truths/facts/certainties/realities that matter most.

a reply to: fatkid
Just don't overlook that in the verses you quoted the word "sword" is used with a variety of meanings, especially the first 2 usages are notably different from the rest of your quotations. But there are more varieties in usage used in your list.

The post would have been very endearing to me if you had taught or stated clearly that the word "sword" was used in the same manner (referring to the same concept) in all these verses though. Sort of like a parent getting his/her first drawing of the parent from his/her very young child with purple hair, 3 fingers on each hand, and a head without a nose or ears. Cute, but not very representative of reality/truth (in terms of accuracy that is, or what Paul would call "an accurate knowledge of truth" at 2 Timothy 3:1-7).

a reply to: Joshuabennone

Their level of technology has absolute zero to do with their religious ideas