What does "Not Peace but the sword" mean?

[Ray the atheist]

Very often, Christians will argue about context.. so maybe the context of the verse I will be quoting isn't a call to violence, after all.

Matthew 10:34 (KJV)

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

2 Questions:

1. How does this verse accurately represent a message of harmony, mutual love and non-violence that I am told that Jesus was promoting?

2. How does the imagery of a sword suggest "peace"?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #152]

1 - You disregard the intention and meaning of the author(s). It matters what they mean to portray about God.

______________________________________________

I can't "regard" their intentions.

1. They didn't WRITE their intentions.
2. They are dead, so I cannot ask them about their intentions.
3. I can't read minds.

No author writes their intentions.

But we know the author of Harry Potter intends Voldemordt as the bad guy and Dumbledore as the good guy. Even though Dumbledore left Harry with an abusive family after Harry's parents were murdered. Dumbledore did that because it kept Harry safe from a much worse danger and fate (Voldemordt.)


We don't have to ask the author about her intentions because we can read the book and we know her intentions.

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #152]

2 - You disregard - and/or are ignorant of - the accounts in that book which contradict your opinion. Hosea 6:6; Matt 9:13; Isaiah 58:6-11, to name just a few. Not to mention the words and deeds of Christ, and at least most of the NT. Not to mention the gift of eternal life, the forgiveness given, the mercy given, the resurrection to come, the blessings and peace that He and His Son give, the healing that Christ did for others, through the power and authority that His Father gave Him. The world to come with no death, no suffering, no mourning.

_________________________________________________

No, I am fully aware of how theologians have interpreted the text im criticizing.

I am not criticizing their theology.
I am criticizing Matthew 10:34 (KJV)

If we're back to Matt 10:34, then my point stands. In your critique, you disregard and/or are ignorant of the direct accounts where Christ (the speaker at Matthew 10:34) shows that He did not mean a literal physical sword.

I'm not going to go through all those passage again.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

You cite other verses that seem to point to a loving, peaceful god.

I cite directly relevant verses from the same speaker, in the same book (Matthew.)

Where you see harmony, I see contradiction.

Then that should be your only conclusion, should it not?

A loving, peaceful god would not bring a sword.
A loving, peaceful god would not say he doesn't bring peace.

It's fine that you can point to verses where the God is depicted as loving and peaceful, but it's extremely trivial for me to make lists of where the God is depicted as warring, commanding and committing bloody violence.

Lets not disregard those passages.

Remember when you wanted me to ignore directly relevant verses (where Christ specifically rebukes His disciples for using a physical sword for physical violence)?

Sword has more than one meaning (literal or metaphorical.) We discussed this already. So when you have the exact same speaker rebuke His disciples for using a physical sword, a direct refutation of using a physical sword to cause physical harm, why would you continue to insist that He meant physical sword at Matt 10:34?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #152]

3 - You disregard the conclusion of the book. The culmination. That is Christ - that Christ is the One who shows us His Father as His Father truly is. That Christ is the image and truth of God. That Christ is the One to whom we are to listen. I mean, if everything had been correct in the OT (or even in the minds of the people previous to Him coming), what need would there have been for Christ to come and explain all things (John 4:25)? He even corrected things from the law, such as the law on divorce, which He explained Moses had given the people because their hearts were hard. (Matt 19:8) And when it came to stoning a woman for adultery, Christ instead saved her life - showing mercy, showing love (John 8:1-11.) Which is what God desires and always had desired.

__________________________________________


The Bible isn’t one continuous story with a single conclusion.

If the bible isn't one continuous story, why are you bringing the OT into a discussion about a verse written in NT. All the while ignoring the context in the NT, in the book of Matthew, even?

Its later teachings don’t erase earlier passages depicting God commanding or committing violence.

This is untrue. It is exactly the opposite of what you are saying here.

Later teachings can and often do erase earlier passages.

1 - In the OT, the people were told that God would raise up a prophet like Moses, and that the people would have to listen to everything HE said. This is referring to Christ.

2 - The Samaritan woman at the well knew that they were supposed to listen to the Messiah, who would explain all things. Christ confirms that He is that person (the Messiah.)

3 - In the NT, God states: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him." Not listen to the OT. Not listen to religion. Not listen to men.

4 - Christ did in fact overturn things - "You have heard it said, but I tell you now..."

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matt 5:38

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. Matt 5:43-45

Christ even spoke of at least one law given to the people - not because it was true from the beginning - but because their hearts were hard. There were exceptions made for the people whose hearts were hard. But Christ came and spoke the truth. Hard to hear or not.

Christ also led by example: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - when men brought a woman to be stoned for adultery to him, citing the law that Moses gave them to stone such women.

5 - Christ stated Himself that NO ONE knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.



In order to hold up a verse (or account) to test and see if it is true (about God), you have to have the truth to test against, do you not?

That truth is Christ. Hold all things up to Him. He is the One who shows us His Father.


Peace again to you.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to tam in post #161]

No author writes their intentions.

Not often, that's for sure !!
I agree that some authors give us enough information so that we don't have to speculate about the most important points of the stories.

But modern authors have explained their stories in great detail... maybe the bible authors did as well, we just don't know.

The stories themselves are extremely ambiguous... if they were clear as a bell, we would not NEED their explanations.


_____________________________________

But we know the author of Harry Potter intends Voldemordt as the bad guy and Dumbledore as the good guy. Even though Dumbledore left Harry with an abusive family after Harry's parents were murdered. Dumbledore did that because it kept Harry safe from a much worse danger and fate (Voldemordt.)

We don't have to ask the author about her intentions because we can read the book and we know her intentions.

You just used a terrible example in J.K. Rowlings and her Harry Potter series.

1. J. K. Rowling wrote so well that we can all know why Voldemort ( no D ) is so evil.. his motivation and the motivation of Harry are explicitly spelled out in the stories. My 6 year old daughter had no trouble understanding the stories when I read them to her before bedtime... Rowling made the stories accessible to children and to their parents, which is a great trick !!

2. She has given interviews about the stories that we all can read. The internet is great for that kind of thing.

3. Also, Rowlings has a website dedicated to her explanations of the stories ...

https://www.harrypotter.com/writing-by- ... hatgpt.com

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to tam in post #162]

Me: No, I am fully aware of how theologians have interpreted the text im criticizing.

I am not criticizing their theology.
I am criticizing Matthew 10:34 (KJV)

You: If we're back to Matt 10:34, then my point stands. In your critique, you disregard and/or are ignorant of the direct accounts where Christ (the speaker at Matthew 10:34) shows that He did not mean a literal physical sword.

I'm not going to go through all those passage again.

____________________________________

I am not aware of any bible verse that specifically explains Matt 10:34.
I am aware of the many times you have explained your interpretation of the verse.

Many many explanations from you, none in the actual bible.

Repeating your claim while stating that you wont back it up fails to persuade me, so I have to ignore your claim. If you can't provide text to back up your claim, I wont bother with the claim.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to tam in post #163]

YOU: 3 - You disregard the conclusion of the book. The culmination. That is Christ - that Christ is the One who shows us His Father as His Father truly is. That Christ is the image and truth of God. That Christ is the One to whom we are to listen. I mean, if everything had been correct in the OT (or even in the minds of the people previous to Him coming), what need would there have been for Christ to come and explain all things (John 4:25)? He even corrected things from the law, such as the law on divorce, which He explained Moses had given the people because their hearts were hard. (Matt 19:8) And when it came to stoning a woman for adultery, Christ instead saved her life - showing mercy, showing love (John 8:1-11.) Which is what God desires and always had desired.

__________________________________________

ME: The Bible isn’t one continuous story with a single conclusion.

You: If the bible isn't one continuous story, why are you bringing the OT into a discussion about a verse written in NT. All the while ignoring the context in the NT, in the book of Matthew, even?

You are presenting a false dilemma.

A text can be discussed alongside other texts without treating them as one continuous story. You’re confusing intertextual analysis with narrative unity.

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #161]

No author writes their intentions.

Not often, that's for sure !!
I agree that some authors give us enough information so that we don't have to speculate about the most important points of the stories.

But modern authors have explained their stories in great detail... maybe the bible authors did as well, we just don't know.

The stories themselves are extremely ambiguous... if they were clear as a bell, we would not NEED their explanations.


_____________________________________

But we know the author of Harry Potter intends Voldemordt as the bad guy and Dumbledore as the good guy. Even though Dumbledore left Harry with an abusive family after Harry's parents were murdered. Dumbledore did that because it kept Harry safe from a much worse danger and fate (Voldemordt.)

We don't have to ask the author about her intentions because we can read the book and we know her intentions.

You just used a terrible example in J.K. Rowlings and her Harry Potter series.

1. J. K. Rowling wrote so well that we can all know why Voldemort ( no D ) is so evil.. his motivation and the motivation of Harry are explicitly spelled out in the stories. My 6 year old daughter had no trouble understanding the stories when I read them to her before bedtime... Rowling made the stories accessible to children and to their parents, which is a great trick !!

2. She has given interviews about the stories that we all can read. The internet is great for that kind of thing.

3. Also, Rowlings has a website dedicated to her explanations of the stories ...

https://www.harrypotter.com/writing-by- ... hatgpt.com

Ray, if you cannot see that the authors portray God as the One who is good, then I don't think there is anything I can say or do to help you see it.