"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34
"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed."
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed."
Isaiah 53:5
The Bible is filled with tensions--not contradictions--but tensions. By tensions, I mean they are things that at first glance may seem to be teaching two opposite things; however, these tensions are resolvable--they can be harmonized. I believe this out of my convictions about the nature of Scripture. I believe the Bible is actually God's Word and that God does not lie to us. What he has said is all true. Therefore, I assume a presupposition that the Bible is internally consistent and free from contradictions.
So, what do we do when we come across these tensions? We must compare Scripture with Scripture. We must study the biblical languages, and we must look at historical backgrounds to seek an explanation for how two things that seem to be at odds can both be true.
I was reminded of this concept this week as I've been preparing to preach on Matthew 10:34-42. The passage begins, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth." As I first approached this text, I didn't recognize the difficulty that it was going to present. I had a preconceived notion that I understood what it meant and I went to work on thinking through how I would explain that preconceived notion. However, my preconceived notion was challenged. I attended our Thursday night Bibles study at Woburn Baptist Church and as we studied a passage in John dealing with the crucifixion, we turned to read Isaiah 53. I had been thinking and meditating on Matthew 10:34, so as I read the words of Isaiah 53:5 I was struck with a tension. Isaiah said, "Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace." I was particularly struck by the verbal parallel--"bring peace." So Isaiah wrote of the Messiah with the expectation that he would "bring peace" through his substitution on behalf of our sin. I realized that Matthew 10:34 was not as simple as I thought it was. I realized there was a tension here. Did Jesus come to bring peace, or didn't he? I don't want to be simplistic, but as I've thought about it, I'm convinced the answer is yes. He did, but he didn't, and the key to understanding what this means is in John 14:27. Jesus said, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you." This verse resolves the tension. Jesus did come to bring peace, but it was a certain kind of peace. The peace he brings is not what the world thinks of in regard to peace, but it is very different. Isaiah tells us that the Messiah would bring us peace, and it appears that this is peace between God and man. Through Jesus sacrificial atonement, believers receive peace with God. However, Matthew 10:35 expounds upon what Jesus means when he says he brings a sword rather than peace. He said that he came to "set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother." The world often sees peace as the absence of conflict. However, this is not the peace that Jesus brings. Sometimes following Jesus intensifies conflict. Following Jesus requires us to "take up our cross" and be willing to suffer for truth. In the world's eyes, it would be easier and more peaceful just to gloss over differences, to stand up for nothing, to be a theological jellyfish. The world's way of achieving peace is to water down theology until we aren't saying anything definitively so that everything we say is held tentatively because we don't want to offend anyone. This is not the kind of peace that Jesus calls us to. If we have trusted in Christ, we have peace with God, and we have Christian unity based upon a common gospel and a common salvation--but this unity cannot come at the expense of truth.
In our post-modern culture, no one believes in truth anymore. You have your truth, and I have mine. If we claim, as the Bible does, that Jesus is the only way, then we will be labeled intolerant, and conflict will be unavoidable.
Then, Jesus follows this teaching with a call to discipleship. He says that the one who does not take up his cross and follow him is not worthy of him. Now, what do these two concepts have to do with each other? What does it mean to take up one's cross? It means to be willing to suffer persecution for the sake of Christ. It would be easy to avoid persecution by theological compromise, but this would be unfaithfulness. Taking up our cross means being willing to stake our claim on Jesus and the Bible and to declare it boldly and without compromise, and to be willing to suffer the consequences knowing that having Jesus is worth it all.
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you."
John 14:27
