Not Peace, But a Sword (Matthew 10:34)

In Defense of Christian Nonviolence - Part Four

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” He also told his disciples, in Luke 22:36, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” And though Jesus didn’t say it, he is often credited with telling soldiers, “Be content with your wages.”¹ Do verses like these prove Jesus condones his followers using violence in certain situations? Let’s address each of these passages.

Review

First, the purpose of this series on Christian nonviolence is to respond to questions about being nonviolent cruciform peacemakers. In other words, I believe Jesus’ command to love enemies means always doing what is in their best interest (even when it is not in my best interest) and never intentionally injuring, abusing, damaging, or destroying. With the exception of the introductory post, I am not trying to make an airtight case for my own position. I am simply trying to answer questions and respond to objections:

• Why I Believe in Nonviolence - Part One

• A Responsibility to Protect Others - Part Two

• Where is the Line Between Violence and Nonviolence? - Part Three

If you have not read any of these previous posts, I would encourage you to go back and read them.

Not Peace, But a Sword

It is completely understandable that a person might be shocked, surprised, or confused by the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:34. On the one hand, Christians believe Jesus is fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy, “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”² In other words, we believe Jesus inaugurated the kingdom, in which people of many nations turn their weapons into farming tools and stop engaging in war.

However, Jesus surprisingly said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword. What does this mean? How could he fulfill the words of Isaiah, but not bring peace? I believe the context of Matthew 10 makes the meaning clear. Read the entire chapter and I think you will see, Jesus is preparing his followers to be hated and persecuted for his sake. He warns them they will be put on trial and put to death. However, Jesus specifically encourages them, “Do not fear those who kill the body.”³

In other words, Jesus absolutely does bring the peace of Isaiah 2 to fulfillment, but his peace is completely one-sided. Jesus is saying his followers would be cut down by swords, not wield them against others. Though they are to be as “wise as serpents” (understanding there are people out to get them), they are also to be “innocent as doves.”⁴ They are not to retaliate against those who use the sword against them. After all, they are not to fear the death of their bodies.

Therefore, in context, Jesus is not telling his disciples to violently defend themselves against hostile neighbors, family members, or the government. He actually seems to be saying the opposite. He is telling his followers, they would practice peace, but not experience peace. They would suffer violence, but not perpetrate violence. They would die for their faith, but not kill for their faith.

Sell Your Cloak and Buy a Sword

Jesus also instructed his disciples, in Luke 22:36, sell their cloak and buy a sword. This is another text that is often misunderstood and used as a proof-text. In Luke 22, Jesus is about to be arrested. He is once again warning the apostles, though they had previously been sent out without moneybags and knapsacks, expecting their neighbors to show them hospitality, those days were over. The apostles were about to be on their own, perceived as criminals, rebels, and transgressors.

When Jesus told them to buy a sword, it was part of a larger context. Jesus specifically clarified why he was saying this, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”⁵ The whole context is Jesus telling them he was going to be “lumped in with the criminals,”⁶ and the apostles would be as well.

However, as the apostles often did—and we often do—they jumped to conclusions and apparently misunderstood. They responded, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Instead of Jesus saying, “Good. You’re going to need a lot more swords.” He said, “It is enough.” Jesus may have meant two swords were sufficient, or he meant, “Enough of this conversation, you don’t understand what I’m talking about.” Either way, Jesus does not seem to be teaching the apostles to literally arm themselves that night.

For us to take this passage and say, “Look, Lord, we have guns,” is not only to take it to a whole new level, it is to make the same sort of mistake the apostles made. It is to misunderstand that Jesus’ words were specially about the fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus was saying he and his companions would be rejected and counted amongst criminals. They would no longer be welcomed into homes and shown hospitality.

Furthermore, when Peter actually used one of those two swords in defense of Jesus, Peter was rebuked and told, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.”⁷ Interestingly, one early Christian, Tertullian (160-220), said, “Christ, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.”⁸

Soldiers, Be Content with Your Wages

Nearly every time I discuss Christian nonviolence, someone will say, “Jesus told soldiers, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.’” This one is not actually a quote from Jesus. This is John the Baptist speaking,⁹ which matters quite a bit.

“These soldiers probably were not Romans but Jews whom Herod Antipas employed, perhaps to assist tax collectors in their duties.”¹⁰ So, when we picture this scene, we should not picture Roman soldiers, regularly involved in military campaigns. We should picture Jewish men, who were employed as guards for tax collectors. Sadly, these Jewish soldiers had been operating more like thugs for an organized crime boss, using threats of violence to extort money from their neighbors.

These men had been convicted of their sins by John’s preaching. John told them—in preparation for the Messiah’s arrival—they should stop extorting and threatening their neighbors, stop falsely accusing people, and be content with their wages. In this context, John is not really addressing whether or not these men could use violence in a military campaign against national enemies. That doesn’t seem to be part of their job description, so it isn’t incredibly relevant to this discussion.

More importantly, John wasn’t giving a general teaching to all soldiers, in all places, for all time. He wasn’t even speaking to followers of Jesus. John was preaching a specific message to the nation of Israel, to prepare them for the Messiah’s arrival. He was telling the people to repent, stop perpetrating injustice, and be baptized, so they could receive God’s Anointed One when he arrived. This is simply a different purpose than the teachings of Jesus, or the later teachings of the apostles, who were explaining to people (more like us) what it means to follow Jesus, walk by the Spirit, and live as citizens of God’s kingdom.

Final Thoughts

Whether or not you agree with my overall conclusion about Christians and violence, I appreciate you reading and hearing me out. I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree. However, I am hoping we can agree that Scripture should always be used carefully and contextually.

Before I close, in a previous post, I argued that Jesus did not use violence to protect John from violence and death. I apologize to anyone who felt like I was misusing that story or taking it out of context. I was not trying to argue that the inaction of Jesus proves we should all embrace nonviolence. That was not my point. I was trying to say, the inactions of Jesus prove we are not obligated, with a God-given responsibility, to use violence to protect our family from danger. We should absolutely protect our families, but that does not mean everything is justifiable in defense of family.

Many today claim that insufficient action, to protect one’s family, is sin; that it is neglecting family to stop short of violence in their protection. I believe Jesus proves that is NOT the case. Jesus could have prevented John’s death—just as he could have prevented his own death—but Jesus did not respond to Herod’s threat of violence with violence; and Jesus never sinned.

I am trying my best to keep Scripture in context and not overstate my case. However, I am also sure I am not doing that perfectly. I appreciate you all for your patience and grace.

I love you and God loves you,

Wes McAdams

1. These were the words of John the Baptizer in Luke 3:14.

2. Isaiah 2:4

3. Matthew 10:28

4. Matthew 10:16

5. Luke 22:37

6. Luke 22:37 in Eugene Peterson’s, The Message

7. Matthew 26:52

8. https://prayerandpolitiks.org/articles-essays-sermons/early-church-fathers-on-refusal-of-the-sword/

9. Luke 3:14

10. Stein, Robert H. Luke. Vol. 24. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.