As vessels of Christ, we are those who have chosen to extol the Gospel above those things which we value on this earth. By taking up our "cross" and following Christ, we seemingly accept a life of ridicule and marginalization by the standards of the world.

This is the message that leads to Matthew 10:40-42, where Christ offers a positive slant on the life of a Christian disciple. When the disciples were given their commissioning in vv. 5-15, Jesus reminded them that they are to be these vessels of Christ's teachings, and when they effectively evangelize, though they may face strife, those who accept what they say not only receive that message, but also Christ and God who sent him. The acceptance of the Christian and the Christian message carries with it a reward for both the one evangelizing and the one receiving the Gospel. God will reward each his/her due for serving Christ and the Kingdom of God.

For the disciples this charge was clear, but for those of us entering into ministry, are we spreading Christ's message in order to receive our reward or so that the Kingdom of God can grow and produce? The question of motive drives us to a self-awareness of how we evangelize to others, especially in a world where evangelizing is often tainted by money and greed. In Matt. 10:8b Christ reminds the disciples that, "You received without payment, give without payment"; thus, the reward Christ envisions for faithful discipleship should remain secondary as long as the work of the Gospel remains incomplete.

Verse 34 seems like a contradiction to much of Christian teaching, especially as found in the New Testament. Is Christ speaking here solely to the difficulty facing his disciples? This affects the way we live out our lives as we attempt to follow Christ.

The HarperCollins Bible Commentary argues that Christ refers here to the divisions that will emerge as people choose between him and others. It notes that it cannot in any way advocate violence since it is the “most pacifist book in the Bible” (882). Chrysostom came to a far different conclusion. He argued that the peace of Christ comes only “when the cancer is cut away” (Ancient Christian Commentary, 210). Christ must preserve peace the same way a military commander does, “by cutting off those in rebellion” (210).

It seems unlikely that Christ here would be advocating some sort of violent revolution. However, I am aware that at least some of his disciples wanted such a revolution so I think it is possible that the original author of this passage intended something along these lines. However, if we look at it within the context of the canon I do not think that this is the proper reading any longer.

Jesus' claim that he came to bring a sword, and not peace, is troublesome. He has said in 5:9 that peacemakers are blessed and called sons of God. It would be ironic if Jesus himself were not a peacemaker, for by his own mouth he would not then be a son of God! Likewise later in Gethsemane (26:52) he explicitly rebukes a companion for attempting to defend him with a sword, saying 'them that take the sword shall perish by the sword.' What then does Jesus mean by 'sword', and how does it characterize his own description of his own mission?

Luz (111-2) rejects these verses as revealing a crypto-zealot Christ. Rather, they point to the character of the result that Christ's mission will bring about. Acceptance of the Gospel (this is inferred as the 'sword') will cut down the otherwise most intimate ties of family. Davies & Allison (217) read it is as eschatologically-oriented suffering in store for the disciples, including suffering and martyrdom. He claims that Jesus here fulfills the eschatological prophecy of Micah 7:6.

Luz's account makes sense especially in light of v 37, in which Jesus demands that he be loved more than family. He has told his disciples that the Gospel will instigate a crisis of loyalty and obedience between Jesus and family, and he is emphasizing that the choice must be in his favor. The Davies & Allison reading, on the other hand, fits better with what has gone before in vv 16-24: the disciples will face persecution; also the 'cross' of v 38. I don't think that it is necessary to choose between these readings--if one must, however, Luz's might be preferable because its exegetical account works internal to the verses examined. But note that it is crucial for both of these readings that 'peace' NOT be read eschatologically--it must be used here in a 'common', 'loose and popular' sense. Not, say, the peace in John 27:14 as explicitly and uniquely Jesus' to give to his own.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." How does such a statement reconcile with the image of Christ as Prince of Peace who praises peacemakers in Matthew 5? Has Jesus come to unite or to divide?

This sentiment of bringing the sword and dividing family members appears also in Luke 12:51, 53 as well as in the story of the second horse in Revelation 6. Similar language appears in the OT in Micah 7:6. This striking language, then, is not unique to Matthew. Davies and Allison speak of v. 34-36 in an eschatological fashion. Jesus is making it clear that his presence on the earth does not immediately usher in the promised time of eschatological peace. Rather, his coming exacerbates tensions and drives a time of intense tribulation (218-19). Jesus comes and divides the faithful from the unbelieving in shocking ways, as if familial ties were being destroyed with a sword. Luz focuses again on this dividing of family members. The image presented in v. 34-36 is one of the most radical love, in which home, family, possessions are counted as nothing in comparison with Christ (111). The most intimate of human bonds will be strained and must be counted as secondary in importance to the Lord.

These interpretations certainly shed light on the intensity of these verses for me, the absolute primacy of Christ above all things. However, I still find the image of the sword and the tossing aside of peace troubling. Earlier in this very chapter (v. 13), Jesus was speaking of the disciples' peace during their travels! If the author of Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience who has been waiting for a military Messiah, to what degree must we look at this passage in that light? Could such an image of sword have been incorporated into Jesus' discourse in order to appeal to these Jews?

1. 10:34-36 “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (vs. 34). This passage, appears to be contrary to what Christianity understands to be Jesus’ mission. Further, in Matt 5:9 Jesus is speaks to the crowd saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God.” This is the mission discourse and the disciples are to imitate Jesus, how is this verse in keeping with the rest of Christ’s mission? Further why does Jesus contradict himself from the Sermon on the Mount?

2. According to Davies, Jesus is referring not to the existing time in which peace will be coming but rather “the messianic era of peace.” Therefore we should not expect to have peace here in this world, but we will be struggling and suffering until Christ does come again (pg. 219). In relation to families being separated, this again relates to what will happen in the eschaton, when the faithful will be separated from the unfaithful (pg. 220).

Luz, like Davies, believes that Jesus did not come to bring a rebellion against Rome and v.34 provides an antithesis, which is directed against the Jewish expectation of a messianic prince of peace. The familial split is drastic and may relate to the struggles of families in the eschaton. Luz also states on pg. 111 that Christ requires radical changes and has made the break in families and demands it of his followers who are to break with the ways of the world, which includes family, friends, and even possessions.

3. These arguments are persuasive and reading the commentaries it is easy to see the commentator’s train of thought. However, when reading the text directly from the Bible it is not evident what Christ is talking about and continues to be antithetical to 5:9. I do not see how a typical person would understand this passage to be relating to the eschaton without looking to the commentaries, rather would continue to see this as a contrary statement.