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

[Tommy]

Matthew 26:52-54 

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

 

 

John 18:36

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

[Sanity Check]

On 4/4/2024 at 10:04 AM, 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?

 

 

It might reference

 

Revelation 9:11-16

 

 

¹¹ I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. ¹² His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. ¹³ He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. ¹⁴ The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. ¹⁵ Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”^[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. ¹⁶ On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

king of kings and lord of lords.

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

It might reference

 

Revelation 9:11-16

 

 

¹¹ I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. ¹² His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. ¹³ He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. ¹⁴ The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. ¹⁵ Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”^[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. ¹⁶ On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

king of kings and lord of lords.

Revelations came after Jesus. So, I do not think Jesus was referencing Revelations

[Tommy]

Google search provided this, ...

What did Jesus mean when he said "I did not come to bring peace but a sword"?

"It is a call to war against ego-identification. Using the sword of discrimination, we must cut away attachment to fleeting identities (this body, this personality, this family) in order to realize the eternal soul. His teaching presented an “either/or” proposition. We can't have both."

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

Google search provided this, ...

What did Jesus mean when he said "I did not come to bring peace but a sword"?

"It is a call to war against ego-identification. Using the sword of discrimination, we must cut away attachment to fleeting identities (this body, this personality, this family) in order to realize the eternal soul. His teaching presented an “either/or” proposition. We can't have both."

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Google.

[salaam123]

On 4.4.2024 at 11:04 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 Holy Spirit can be irritating to some, though not all. Even to the point of killing the person who has it. Because it instantly brings disagreement to the table, disagreement of the worldly way of life, even without saying a word. Disagreement can erupt in violence.Jesus brought the Holy Spirit to all through faith in Him. Thus he brought the sword. This is my understanding of it.

Edited May 2 by salaam123

[Daniel]

19 hours ago, S:C said:

I don’t have any answers. Sorry.

 

Do you think that Jesus would have wasted words being repetitive?  When I read the greek scriptures, it seems to me that everything that is quoted of Jesus possesses many layers of meaning.  The meaning is concentrated and compressed into the words which is why they need to be unpacked.  That is the opposite of wasted and repetitive words.

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, Tommy said:

Matthew 26:52-54 

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

 

... But how then should the Scriptures ( aka prophecy ) be fulfilled? 

 

Per Jesus:  The violence and broken hearts are necessary in order for the fulfilling of the prophecy.

[S:C]

What @salaam123 said rang a distant bell for me… and reminded me of a novel. Protagonist there said, he doesn’t like the feeling of being loved, it’s egoistic, suffocatingly sweet and sticky, makes one grasp for air, - what he wanted was to love in vain but to attain little (maybe wrongly estimated) steps towards a possible fulfillment. 

 

Not sure if anyone follows. No, @Daniel, I don’t think he has been redundant but the language barrier, words and meanings lost in translation, who knows. 

 

Along the lines of: no peace as in a lovey dovey harmonic union - where people magically change and adapt to a fruitful god wishful lifestyle in the way it would be done as a present to a or the deity - but in a way - through the sword - that nothing remains but that one. Being forced to giving up the parts that don’t belong. Getting empty, as others call it. Pervasive maybe, but to the right cause and origin. Who or what that ever is might be akin to perceiving something without senses. And the danger, grave danger… “a million candles burning for the help that never came”… no guarantees and just probabilities, no real prophecies, eh? Self shouldn’t be relinquished before time and never forced against the rhythm and one’s personal melody. 
Haven’t got the chance now to clear this into understandable words, might try later again, thanks.

 

 

Edited May 2 by S:C

[Tommy]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

... But how then should the Scriptures ( aka prophecy ) be fulfilled? 

 

Per Jesus:  The violence and broken hearts are necessary in order for the fulfilling of the prophecy.

Yes, he did say it was necessary but he did not advocate violence. He was fulfilling a prophecy. You are picking and choosing your meanings instead of reading what is there. Still, if that is what you need or want then so be it.

[S:C]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

You are picking and choosing your meanings

Isn’t anyone? 
 

“Reading what is there” relies on “picking and choosing your meanings”, in my very humble opinion on this matter.

Edited May 2 by S:C

[idiot_stimpy]

5 hours ago, S:C said:

Isn’t anyone? 
 

“Reading what is there” relies on “picking and choosing your meanings”, in my very humble opinion on this matter.

 

Its true and in some cases there is multiple layers of meaning. A classic example is using a story to convey a certain idea. The idea can be taken exoterically or esoterically depending on the viewpoint. The exoteric view was given to the lay people, the esoteric was reserved for the priesthood.   

[Tommy]

8 hours ago, S:C said:

Isn’t anyone? 
 

“Reading what is there” relies on “picking and choosing your meanings”, in my very humble opinion on this matter.

When it comes to the Bible, everyone picks and chooses their own meanings. But, what was written has a meaning when it was written. Choosing to ignore it and take whatever one wants is similar to making mistakes and calling it the truth. However, this isn't a class room and there are no rules to follow. No structure. Just people reading words on paper and taking whatever they need from it. God bless them all.

[Daniel]

On 5/2/2024 at 10:25 AM, Tommy said:

Yes, he did say it was necessary but he did not advocate violence.

 

To be clear, I do no think he was advocating violence either.  I wrote "he was not opposed to violence." 

 

Spoiler

 

On 5/2/2024 at 10:25 AM, Tommy said:

He was fulfilling a prophecy.

 

Agreed.

 

On 5/2/2024 at 10:25 AM, Tommy said:

You are picking and choosing your meanings instead of reading what is there. Still, if that is what you need or want then so be it.

I think what I meant to communicate is being misunderstood.  I apologize for not being more clear.

 

 

[Daniel]

On 5/2/2024 at 11:35 AM, S:C said:

Isn’t anyone? 
 

“Reading what is there” relies on “picking and choosing your meanings”, in my very humble opinion on this matter.

 

The verse as written is:  

 

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην, ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν

 

Μὴ -   Lest ( soft negation )

νομίσητε - think 

ὅτι - that 

ἦλθον - [ I ] came

 

βαλεῖν - "casting"? "Like a net?  From the root βάλλω. 

That's an interesting word choice.  "Net <--> Sword" is a sharp contrast.

 

εἰρήνην - "peace-as-a-consequence-of-unity"

Another interesting word choice:  from the root εἴρω = "bound / united".  It means "peace" but it is  peace that comes from a fundamental connection.  Strong's Lexicon indicates that εἰρήνην was the traditional Jewish Greek invocation on departure.  This matches the traditional hebrew invocation on departure which is:  Shalom.  Shalom is from the root Shaleim, which means "complete".  Also Salam in arabic.  Bound, united, complete, all of these are expressing the same message.  When Jewish people part ways, traditionally it is said:  "Be at peace, we are united, we are complete."  That is what is expressed by the word "Shalom" in hebrew and also the meaning of "Eirene" "εἰρήνην" in Greek.  It is a a true peace that can only be accomplished through inclusion.  As an aside:  there's also a Greek Goddess in their pantheon named "Eirene / Irene", the goddess of peace.  Perhaps there's an additional layer of meaning in this as well?  Jesus is saying that he did not come to bring either the traditional Greek version of peace?  And.  He did not come to bring the traditional hebrew version of peace.  He came to bring something different than that.

 

ἐπὶ - to

τὴν - the

 

γῆν - [ the physical ]  earth

Often a word chosen to translate the hebrew words Eretz and Adamah in the Greek Old Testament.

 

οὐκ - not ( harsh negation )

ἦλθον - [ I ] came

βαλεῖν - "casting" ( like a net )

εἰρήνην - "peace-coming-from-unity" ( see above )

ἀλλὰ - but

 

μάχαιραν -"slaughter-knife"

μάχαιρα has specific connotation. It only had one edge as contrasted with a ῥομφαία, a more elegant two-sided double edged sword.  There is context here that is needed.  The μάχαιραν is not an ordinary "sword" even though that is how it is translated into english.  It is a long single sided knife which was often used in ritual slaughter.  This can be seen in Homer's Illiad where the priest of apollo uses a μάχαιραν to slaughter the sacrifice.  In hebrew, this sort of knife is called a khaylif.  The knives used for ritual slaughter were ( and are ) exceptionally sharp and long so that the beast would be dispatched painlessly with a single deliberate stroke.   This is the ending of the statement.   This is what Jesus is saying he is bringing.  He is bringing a slaughter-knife to  execute a ritual.

 

---

 

According to what's written, the verse is contrasting the imagery of casting a wide net ( εἰρήνην / Eirene / inclusive-peace ) with executing a ritual slaughter ( μάχαιραν / Machairan / divisive-salvation? )

 

@Tommy, what do you think about this analysis? 

 

Edited May 13 by Daniel

[Tommy]

What do I think about this analysis? I think I am too old and tire. So, tl-dr  (too long- didn't read). My dementia is kicking in. I don't even remember being in this thread. Shalom. Or is it Namaste? Eh, aloha.

[old3bob]

to me most of this discussion is a good example of why hard core dualistic and non-dualistic teachings can never really be integrated,  "unity in diversity" has certain limits with most beings (via the instrument of thinking mind)  although such is not for what is sometimes called the Absolute.  So if the Absolute is reached then what is there to argue or "divide"?

 

Edited May 14 by old3bob