Matthew 10:34-36 - what does he mean?

[S:C]

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

this has been wondering me for years now… what is the meaning of this sentence, is it related to perception?

[Maddie]

29 minutes ago, S:C said:

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

this has been wondering me for years now… what is the meaning of this sentence, is it related to perception?

 

I suppose the real question is, did Jesus actually say this or since Matthew was written decades after Jesus' death, is it something the author(s) of Matthew wrote for a specific reason? Maybe to explain why the temple was destroyed by the Romans after Jesus had originally promised to come back and establish a kingdom? 

[SirPalomides]

Well he pretty much lays it out in what he says before and after this line, that is, that his doctrine and following will produce dissension within communities and families and the persecution of the disciples. 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, S:C said:

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

this has been wondering me for years now… what is the meaning of this sentence, is it related to perception?

The truth of the logos cuts through ignorance and mal intent like a sharp sword.  

[S:C]

What’s “logos” in your view? @Apech
Reason, rationality, differentiating abilities of the mind, grasping word concepts?

[Apech]

2 hours ago, S:C said:

What’s “logos” in your view? @Apech
Reason, rationality, differentiating abilities of the mind, grasping word concepts?

The intelligence of God or Spirit.

 

[Daniel]

On 4/4/2024 at 1:04 PM, S:C said:

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

this has been wondering me for years now… what is the meaning of this sentence, is it related to perception?

 

The sword = division.

 

From the same chapter: (NIV)

 

32 Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

 

^^ Division ^^

 

From chapter 13:  (NIV)

 

“The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them."

 

^^ Division ^^

 

From chapter 3:  (NIV)

 

I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

 

^^ Division ^^

 

The Book of Matthew in some ways is the most "Jewish" of the gospels.  The prophecies of the Jewish Messiah are at first catastrophic, a period of division, which is resolving into a perfected world.  "... do no think that I bring peace .... but a sword." 

 

[S:C]

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

The sword = division

Differentiation. 

Seems contradictory to the approach for reuniting with God, no? 

 

And to Matthew 7:1: Judge not lest you be judged. (By the same standards maybe.)

 

A purification of sorts through the process of differentiation for a clearance of sorts? Odd.
 

[idiot_stimpy]

Sword could mean cutting through delusion/ignorance.

[Daniel]

11 hours ago, S:C said:

Differentiation. 

Seems contradictory to the approach for reuniting with God, no?

 

The Christian bible is, top to bottom, dividing or differentiating between those who are reuniting ( salvation ) and those who are not.

 

Edited April 10 by Daniel

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, idiot_stimpy said:

Sword could mean cutting through delusion/ignorance.

 

Wouldn't that bring peace?

 

" ... do not think that I came to bring peace ... "

[idiot_stimpy]

Letting go of attachments can be extremely painful if you are not ready to let go.

[SirPalomides]

Again, the context of the passage makes it clear what it's about. Of course esoteric readings about spiritual struggle, cutting through attachments, etc. can and have been made but they don't contradict the basic gist that he is bringing intracommunal conflict and it's not going to be pretty. 

[S:C]

4 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

he is bringing intracommunal conflict and it's not going to be pretty

because? 
his perspective is/was provocative to the then common/current standard? what are you referring to exactly? 

Edited April 10 by S:C

[S:C]

On 10.4.2024 at 6:18 AM, Daniel said:

Wouldn't that bring peace?

I tend to disagree.

whatever truth might be reached may still feel warlike and painful, considering the boundaries would get only get dimmer or thinner then… (not fully disappearing) while not ready for dissolution if that makes sense at all. 

Spoiler

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipermeable_membrane

 

Edited April 11 by S:C

[Maddie]

I've noticed people tend to get way more upset when I tell them the truth.

[Tommy]

On 4/9/2024 at 9:21 PM, idiot_stimpy said:

Sword could mean cutting through delusion/ignorance.

 

On 4/10/2024 at 12:18 AM, Daniel said:

 

Wouldn't that bring peace?

 

" ... do not think that I came to bring peace ... "

 

On 4/10/2024 at 3:34 PM, S:C said:

I tend to disagree.

whatever truth might be reached may still feel warlike and painful, considering the boundaries would get only get dimmer or thinner then… (not fully disappearing) while not ready for dissolution if that makes sense at all. 

 

I tend to think of it as saying that bringing peace would be keeping the things the same (Status Quo). Where as the sword means change. He did not advocate violence. Wasn't he the one who said that if a person strikes your cheek to offer him the other cheek?? Treat thy neighbors as one would thyself??

[Tommy]

28 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I've noticed people tend to get way more upset when I tell them the truth.

I have a hard time distinguishing the truth. As in the story of the farmer who lost his horse, the next day the situation makes what happened before bad luck into good luck. And like subjective truth, Hamlet says that a thing is neither good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

Edited April 28 by Tommy

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I have a hard time distinguishing the truth. As in the story of the farmer who lost his horse, the next day the situation makes what happened before bad luck into good luck. And like subjective truth, Hamlet says that a thing is neither good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

 

I suppose that's a whole other question LOL

[Daniel]

29 minutes ago, Tommy said:

He did not advocate violence.

 

Jesus is quoted in Luke ( NIV ):

 

 ... if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

 

In context, in Luke 22, Jesus is directing his disciples to arm themselves and, yes, be violent to prevent their capture by the established power structure, the pharisee judicial system.  The verse referenced is in Isaiah 53, the famous "suffering-servant" prophecy.  In order to adopt the station of the "suffering-servant", among other things, Jesus needs to be "את־פשעים נמנה", literally "of the transgressors, allocated".   If the disciples do not fight back, then the disciples are no longer transgressors.  In order to take the station of "suffering-servant", the disciples need to be actively antagonistic to the decree of the pharisees in violation of biblical law.  The pharisees are coming to seize the disciples with violence.  They cannot submit.  They will need to react violently.  Submitting to the pharisee prison and the pharisee death sentence peacefully does not fulfill the prophecy of the "suffering-servant".

 

Later in the chapter, there is violence.  The disciples use the sword, but Jesus heals the one who is injured.  Jesus, in theory, could have could have prevented it, but he did not come to bring peace.  The violence is necessary in order to repair it.  That is an important concept in Christianity.

[Tommy]

So, telling his disciples to protect themselves amount to preaching or advocating violence? Is this what he taught to the general public? That his message to the people was to go inflict violence upon one another? Then why heal the one who is injured? Jesus did not come to bring peace or the status quo but to bring about change. Some changes are violent (not all are).

[Daniel]

On 4/28/2024 at 12:23 PM, Tommy said:

So, telling his disciples to protect themselves amount to preaching or advocating violence?

 

He was not opposed to violence.

 

On 4/28/2024 at 12:23 PM, Tommy said:

Is this what he taught to the general public?

 

He did not teach to the general public.

 

On 4/28/2024 at 12:23 PM, Tommy said:

That his message to the people was to go inflict violence upon one another?

 

Jesus taught several things.  The story as it's written requires Jesus to be one of the "faction" of the transgressors.  Inflicting violence on the pharisee judicial establishment is a transgression.  It's a capital offense.  Ref:  Deuteronomy 17:9-12.  The pharisees are the "judges who [were] in those days" (אל־השפט אשר יהיה בימים).  Encouraging the violence guarantees that Jesus will be "of the transgressors, allocated" (את־פשעים נמנה) from the suffering-servant prophecy written in Isaiah 53:12.

 

The violence is part of the plan.  Here are the verses from Deuteronomy 17 in a spoiler for reference.

 

Spoiler

17:9
ובאת אל־הכהנים הלוים ואל־השפט אשר יהיה בימים ההם ודרשת והגידו לך את דבר המשפט׃
And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall declare to you the sentence of judgment;

17:10
ועשית על־פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן־המקום ההוא אשר יבחר יהוה ושמרת לעשות ככל אשר יורוך׃
And you shall do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall declare to you; and you shall take care to do according to all that they inform you;

17:11
על־פי התורה אשר יורוך ועל־המשפט אשר־יאמרו לך תעשה לא תסור מן־הדבר אשר־יגידו לך ימין ושמאל׃
According to the sentence of the Torah which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do; you shall not decline from the sentence which they shall declare to you, to the right hand, nor to the left.

17:12
והאיש אשר־יעשה בזדון לבלתי שמע אל־הכהן העמד לשרת שם את־יהוה אלהיך או אל־השפט ומת האיש ההוא ובערת הרע מישראל׃
And the man who will act presumptuously, and will not listen to the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or to the judge, that man shall die; and you shall put away the evil from Israel.

 

On 4/28/2024 at 12:23 PM, Tommy said:

Then why heal the one who is injured?

 

Because of the prophecy.  When did the healing occur?  Is that sort of healing permitted at that time?  Jesus had already been warned not to do it?  Agreed?

 

Luke 13:14 (NIV)

 

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

 

Lev. 23:39

 

אך בחמשה עשר יום לחדש השביעי באספכם את־תבואת הארץ תחגו את־חג־יהוה שבעת ימים ביום הראשון שבתון וביום השמיני שבתון׃
Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land, you shall keep a feast to the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.
 

The healing occurred after the passover seder ( "the last supper" ) which is legally on the 15th day of the seventh month which is a "Sabbath".  Healing is not permitted on this day according to the law of God unless there is a risk of imminent death, or, unless there is a woman in labor.

 

Jesus healed that individual, in that time and at that place, so that he [Jesus] would be "of the transgressors, allocated."  Isaiah 53:12.

 

ETA:  In order for the plan to work, the entire plan, all of it it needs to occur on the night of passover.  Most do not know the prophecies well enough to realize this.  Jesus is attempting to execute a rather complicated ... maneuver, for lack of a better word. 

 

Edited May 1 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 4/28/2024 at 12:23 PM, Tommy said:

Jesus did not come to bring peace or the status quo but to bring about change. Some changes are violent (not all are).

 

I agree.  Bringing about changes is "division".  It is a departure from the status quo.  It divides the way-of-life before, from the way-of-life after.  However, there are two statements being referred to in the quote brought to this thread:

 

1)  I have not come to bring peace.

2)  I have come to bring the sword.

 

These are not necessarily redundant statements.  Would Jesus waste words being repetitive?

 

[S:C]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

1)  I have not come to bring peace.

2)  I have come to bring the sword.

 

I don’t have any answers. Sorry.

Edited May 1 by S:C

[Tommy]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

He was not opposed to violence.

 

He did not teach to the general public.

 

I believe Jesus was opposed to violence much like Kung Fu students are taught how to fight but also to not fight whenever possible. Being taught how to fight doesn't mean to go out and find fights. And when in situations that absolutely requires fighting, one fights. Not to harm or to kill. But to protect.

 

Wasn't there something called the Sermon On The Mount?? May be that wasn't real? IDK. That was over 2000 years ago. It could have been just being surrounded by a whole bunch of passerby people?? And Jesus was over heard teaching to his disciples.

 

IDK. You could be right. But then that would make Jesus someone who I would not like to be around. Preach violence and I don't want to be around you much less listen to your words.

 

Hmm, why would someone say the same thing twice? Maybe to emphasize something?  IDK. It isn't unheard of. And sometimes poets use that method to bring about a point. Who knows??

 

Note: Jesus knew very well what was going to happen. I doubt his religion would have been as big if Jesus died of old age and not having bring about change.

Edited May 2 by Tommy