NOT TO BRING PEACE BUT A SWORD (Santamaria)

NOT TO BRING PEACE BUT A SWORD

Contents

• Foreword
• Interpretation
• Old School Baptist View
• Evangelicals and the Old School Baptist Witness
• The Cost of Discipleship

FOREWORD

The gospel naturally divides people, as does the person of Christ.

Guillermo Santamaria

Matthew 10:34:
“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus declares, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” This striking statement stands in tension with many common assumptions about Jesus as a bringer of peace and comfort. However, Jesus here speaks of the inevitable division and conflict that arise when the truth of the gospel confronts a fallen world, even cutting across the most intimate bonds of family and social life.

In this article, we will examine this passage in its immediate biblical context, draw from Greek insights, survey key scholarly interpretations, and then compare those with the view held by Old School (or Primitive) Baptists. After that, we will consider the cost of discipleship in the broader New Testament witness.

INTERPRETATION

Matthew 10:34 (Greek):
“Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν.”

Literal translation:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace upon the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Immediate Context in Matthew 10:

Matthew 10 records Jesus sending out the Twelve with instructions for their mission. The chapter is full of warnings that faithfulness to him will bring opposition, persecution, and division:

• Verses 16–23 speak of rejection, persecution, and even family betrayal on account of Christ’s name.
• Verses 24–33 exhort the disciples not to fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
• Verses 34–39, where our text is found, emphasize the division Christ brings, even within families, and the absolute priority of loyalty to him over any earthly relationship.

Thus, the “sword” here is directly connected to the division the gospel brings, especially within households and social structures. The next verses (35–36) quote Micah 7:6 about family members set against each other, reinforcing this theme.

Greek and Key Terms:

“εἰρήνη” (eirēnē) – peace, harmony, wholeness. Commonly associated with messianic expectations of peace (cf. Isa 9:6).

“μάχαιρα” (machaira) – a sword, often a short sword or dagger. Metaphorically, it can signify division, conflict, or judgment (cf. Heb 4:12).

Jesus denies coming to bring the kind of unqualified earthly “peace” many might have expected of the Messiah. Instead, his coming exposes the hearts of people, leading some to receive him and others to reject him. This unavoidable polarization is captured by the imagery of a “sword.”

Interpretative Analysis:

1. Hyperbole and Contrast:
The “sword” stands in sharp contrast to the expected “peace” of the Messiah. Jesus uses dramatic language to signal the disruptive consequences of his proclamation—not literal violence, but sharp divisions.

2. Division within Relationships:
Immediately following, v. 35 echoes Micah 7:6: “For I have come to set a man against his father…” This shows the impact on family relationships. Loyalty to Jesus may demand choices that break traditional or familial harmony.

3. Not Advocacy of Violence:
Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is nonviolent; later (Matt 26:52) he says “those who take the sword perish by the sword.” “Sword” here is metaphorical for division, not an endorsement of violence.

4. Eschatological and Missional Significance:
Jesus acknowledges the consequences of the gospel: conflict with the world’s powers, with expectations, and sometimes with loved ones. His movement transforms and fundamentally challenges social norms.

Major Scholarly Views

Symbolic/Metaphorical Reading:
Most scholars read the “sword” as a metaphor for the painful division that allegiance to Jesus causes in a world that largely rejects him. This view sees the “sword” as emblematic of eschatological separation – sheep and goats; wheat and tares.

Socio-Political Reading:
Some emphasize the socio-political context: Jesus challenges both religious and imperial structures; such a challenge inevitably causes social conflict. Here the “sword” marks Jesus as a figure whose kingdom confronts all worldly powers.

Existential/Pastoral Reading:
Others focus on the existential reality: following Jesus requires decisions that may cost one relationships, status, comfort, and worldly peace.

Summary of Scholarly Consensus:
The dominant scholarly view is that Jesus’ statement is not about militaristic action, but about the divisive impact of his mission and message. He shatters superficial peace built on compromise, tradition, or idolatry, in order to bring a deeper, truer peace grounded in reconciliation with God — but that deeper peace comes through conflict with sin, the world, and false religion.

OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST VIEW

Old School (or Primitive) Baptists strongly resonate with the idea that Christ and his gospel inevitably divide. Historically, these Baptists separated from “New School” or Missionary Baptists precisely because they believed the latter had compromised the gospel by introducing humanistic methods (mission boards, seminaries, Sunday Schools, etc.) and conditional schemes into the work of salvation.

For Old School Baptists, Matthew 10:34 is not merely a comment on generic religious division; it is a living description of what happens when Christ, in the power of his Spirit, gathers his elect and causes them to walk contrary to the world’s religious and moral systems. The “sword” is experienced concretely as:

• Division between those who rest in the finished work of Christ and those who add conditions, duties, or means to make salvation “work.”
• Division between those who see the church as a simple, Spirit-led body and those who organize it into a human empire with boards, societies, and centralized institutions.
• Division even within families, communities, and long-held denominational ties when someone embraces the Old School position.

Old School writers like Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott frequently apply passages like Matthew 10:34 to the conflict between sovereign, absolute predestination on the one hand and conditional, means-centered schemes on the other. From their standpoint, the same Christ who did not come to bring a carnal peace to first-century Judea has also not come to bring a superficial denominational peace to a religious world drunk on numbers, institutions, and human effort.

In other words, Christ still sends a sword—dividing:

• Those who confess that all things, including the acts of men, are under God’s absolute purpose and predestination,
• from those who insist on a “softer” God whose will can be frustrated, whose purposes shift, and whose grace is suspended upon human choices and conditions.

For Old School Baptists, this “sword” cuts through:

• Modern evangelical methods (altar calls, revivals, decisional regeneration).
• Educational elitism (seminaries as gatekeepers of ministry).
• Moralistic views of sanctification (progressive self-improvement schemes).

They see such systems as an attempt to have a “peace” with the world and its religious expectations, whereas Christ’s gospel actually exposes and condemns these things, dividing the sheep from the goats doctrinally and experimentally.

EVANGELICALS AND THE OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST WITNESS

Why do many typical evangelicals give so little notice to the views of Old School Baptists?

In much of mainstream evangelicalism, Matthew 10:34 is often read and then quickly passed over. The emphasis falls on Jesus as the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), on personal serenity, family harmony, and social reconciliation. Messages abound about “healing relationships” and “restoring community,” all of which can be quite good in their place. But when the text insists, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” there is often a certain embarrassment or quiet discomfort.

Why is this so?

1. Desire for Respectability:
Many evangelicals crave cultural respectability, wanting Christianity to be perceived as a positive, unifying, non-threatening force. A Jesus who divides families and disrupts social harmony does not fit the public-relations strategy.

2. Softening of Doctrinal Edges:
Evangelicalism, especially since the 20th century, has repeatedly softened hard doctrines: unconditional election, reprobation, absolute predestination, the particularity of redemption. When doctrines that inherently divide (sheep from goats, elect from non-elect) are muted, texts about Christ bringing a “sword” feel alien and are reinterpreted as mild “tensions” rather than deep, God-ordained divisions.

3. Therapeutic Religion:
Much preaching and teaching today is therapeutic—focused on psychological well-being, self-esteem, and relational tips. In such a climate, the idea that following Christ may rip apart a family, cost one their reputation, or expose them to hatred is minimized or spiritualized away.

4. Ecumenical Impulses:
Broad evangelicalism often prioritizes visible unity across denominations, even at the cost of glossing over deep doctrinal differences. But Christ’s sword cuts precisely at the point where error and truth clash. When the foundational doctrines of grace (absolute predestination, particular redemption, effectual calling) are treated as negotiable or secondary, the reality of Christ’s divisive sword is obscured.

In contrast, Old School Baptists have historically been willing to endure division, reproach, and isolation for the sake of what they understand to be the unvarnished truth of God’s sovereignty and the finished work of Christ. They are not interested in a peace built on compromise. For them, the “sword” of Christ is not an embarrassment but a confirmation that the gospel is confronting and cutting through the religious systems of the age.

Contrast between the Old School Baptist view and the watered down view found in much of evangelicalism today

1. Nature of Peace:

Evangelical (typical):
Peace is often framed in horizontal, psychological, or relational terms. Jesus is seen as healer of personal conflicts and inner anxieties, bringing circumstantial calm.

Old School Baptist:
Peace is first and foremost vertical – peace with God through the blood of Christ, eternally secured for the elect. This peace is not dependent upon human cooperation or maintained through religious performance. It is an accomplished reality in Christ, applied in time by the Spirit. As such, this peace often coexists with intense outward conflict and inward warfare (flesh vs. spirit).

2. View of Division:

Evangelical (typical):
Division is generally negative, something to be avoided if possible. Harsh doctrinal contrasts are often seen as unloving or “un-Christlike.”

Old School Baptist:
Division is expected where truth confronts error, especially in the realm of doctrine and worship. They read Matthew 10:34–36 as a sober warning that Christ himself causes division by his truth, and that attempts to dodge this division usually mean compromising that truth.

3. Role of Sovereignty:

Evangelical (typical):
God’s sovereignty is often affirmed verbally but limited in practice by human “free will,” contingencies, or “plan B” ideas. The practical effect is a God who means well, offers salvation, and tries to get people to cooperate.

Old School Baptist:
God’s sovereignty is absolute and all-encompassing. All things, including the acts of men and the divisions brought by the gospel, are ordered according to his eternal purpose. Christ does not merely foresee that his coming will bring a sword; he comes with that very purpose—to lay bare the thoughts of many hearts (Luke 2:35), to gather his elect, and to harden others (John 12:37–40; Romans 9).

4. Cost of Discipleship:

Evangelical (typical):
Discipleship is sometimes marketed as a path to personal fulfillment, community, and meaning. Hard texts about suffering, persecution, and family division exist, but they may be downplayed or explained in ways that blunt their force.

Old School Baptist:
Discipleship is understood as a narrow, rugged path marked by tribulation, reproach, and self-denial. Christ’s words about the sword are taken literally in their spiritual and relational impact: to follow him may mean losing family ties, reputation, and earthly comforts. Yet these losses are seen as light compared to the excellency of knowing Christ.

THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP

To further underline what Jesus means by bringing a “sword” and not a superficial peace, we now turn to several key New Testament passages that describe the cost of following him.

Gospels

Matthew 10:34–39 (immediate context)

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Key implications:
Christ demands ultimate allegiance—above the most intimate earthly relationships. The “sword” takes shape as real relational and emotional loss. Taking up the cross is not optional; it is the mark of one who is “worthy” of him.

Matthew 16:24–26

“Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?’”

Key implications:
Discipleship is fundamentally self-denial, not self-fulfillment. Jesus frames the issue as a stark choice between clinging to one’s own life (and losing it) or losing it for him (and truly finding it).

Luke 9:23–26

“And he said to all, ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.’”

Key implications:
Cross-bearing is daily and ongoing. Public identification with Christ and his words is non-negotiable; shame of him now leads to his shame of us then.

Luke 14:25–27, 33

“Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. … So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.’”

Key implications:
Jesus uses shocking language (“hate”) to stress that our love and loyalty to him must so surpass all other loves that, by comparison, they look like hatred. Renouncing all that we have does not necessarily mean literal poverty for all, but it does mean all possessions are surrendered in principle to Christ’s lordship.

Mark 8:34–38

“And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’”

Key implications:
The cost of discipleship is tied to the infinite value of the soul. Temporal gain is worthless if it results in eternal loss.

Pauline Epistles

Philippians 3:7–8
“But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ.”

Romans 8:17
“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

2 Timothy 3:12
“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”

General Epistles

1 Peter 4:12–13
“Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice since you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.”

Summary

These passages make clear that discipleship in Christ demands a readiness for division, suffering, and loss. Christ does not promise an easy, conflict-free life; rather, he promises his presence, his peace with God, and the sure hope of glory beyond present trials. The “sword” he brings cuts away false hopes, exposes idols, and divides those who are his from those who are not. In that light, the cost of discipleship is not a ladder to earn salvation but the inevitable outworking of being joined to a rejected, crucified, and risen Lord in a world that still lies in wickedness.