“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ Anyone who loves their father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for My sake will find it. Anyone who welcomes you welcomes Me, and anyone who welcomes Me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is My disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.” (Matthew 10:34-42)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
This is just one of those passages, isn't it. The truth is - it doesn't fit our image of Jesus at all. The child-loving, lamb-carrying, always forgiving Prince of Peace? And He could say something like, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” It doesn't sound like Jesus. It can't be Jesus. Jesus wouldn't do that. So – what's up with this?
I think that what troubles most people about this passage is that Jesus links it so explicitly to family. “I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ ” That sounds so harsh. Why would Jesus do that? And I realized as I looked at the passage that Jesus is actually quoting something there. So I looked it up. He's basically quoting the prophet Micah. Micah wrote at a time when Israel was starting to fall apart from within largely because of what you might call moral rot – evil and licentious kings in a blood-stained world that cared increasingly less and less about God and about the poor. Whenever things were falling apart in Israel, the expectation began to arise that Messiah was coming to set things straight. So Micah is reflecting on what he sees as the social breakdown of the nation, as everything is falling apart. Whether he literally meant that he saw family members turning on each other we don't know – but it's possible – but it was certainly an image; a turn of phrase that made the point that everything that had provided stability was now falling apart. So you fast forward a few hundred years, and you suddenly find these words from the prophet Micah coming from the lips of Jesus. It was another time when the nation was expecting Messiah. The nation was struggling and under occupation by the Roman Empire. Things were chaotic, and here's Jesus applying the words of Micah to Himself and saying essentially, “OK. I'm the one Micah was speaking about.” I don't know about you, but to me, that's fascinating. It's a messianic statement of Jesus that we wouldn't normally recognize as a messianic statement.
But what does it mean? It might be an example of Jesus linking Himself to prophecies about the Messiah, but it's still a troubling verse to us because of the implications. Is it really the mission of Jesus to set family members against each other? To create enemies out of the members of a person's own household? What about “one Lord, one faith, one baptism?” What about “one God?” What about that “ministry of reconciliation” that Jesus supposedly came with and passed on to us? What about those things? Are they meaningless? That's why Jesus didn't stop with the quote from Micah.
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. ” A lot of people find those words harsh, as well – especially when linked with the words Jesus opened with: “I did not come to bring peace,but a sword.” The sword divides. It cuts right in half if necessary. Keep in mind that for Jesus in this context the opposite of peace isn't war - it's division, or turmoil; it's a lack of tranquility. So Jesus isn't intending for the sword to be thought of literally as a weapon, but rather as an image of that which divides. So, Jesus by His very nature will divide - some will believe in Him, others won't. Even within the church (the family of God or the family of faith) while we hope that everybody believes in Jesus, we know that people will believe different things about Jesus. The very presence of Jesus – and we believe that Jesus is powerfully present with us whenever we gather – creates division. That's inevitable, but put in the context of the entire gospel, I don't think that this passage means that Jesus envisaged actual warfare or violence between those who believed and those who didn't. I don't think He even meant that families would break up over Him. He simply pointed out that there will be divisions. Some will believe and some won't, and that sword of belief will cut through even families and even the family of God. A acquaintance of mine, with whom I debate matters of faith with online every now and then, said this about this passage: “It's a call to choose between family and faith, if it comes down to that. That's exactly what cults do. If you believe the bible, Jesus wants you to act more cult-like.” Except – that's not what the passage is saying at all!
I know some people don't like this, but I have to do this to you! This is one of those New Testament passages that you can't understand unless you know just a little bit of the Greek in which the New Testament was written. In Greek, the love between family members is “phileo.” The love which was offered by Jesus and which we as His followers are called to display is “agape.” What Jesus is saying here is that a “phileo” love is not enough of a grounding for Christians, who are called to “agape.” Read in Greek, the basic point being made is that if your “phileo” is greater than your “agape” then you still have a ways to go in your spiritual development - which probably applies to most of us. My online friend doesn't read Greek, I don't think. This passage isn't “a call to choose between family and faith.” It's actually quite the opposite. The passage is a call to a higher and more pure love - which because it's “agape” (or at least because it's becoming “agape”) would be poured out for all, since love for Jesus is expressed in love for neighbour, which would include mother, father, son, daughter, etc. Jesus isn't saying not to love your family. He's not even saying to love Him more that your family, really. He's saying that you have to develop this “agape” love which is the ultimate and perfect love. And it's poured out equally and totally and unselfishly for everyone – friends, family, neighbours, strangers and even enemies. Believers and unbelievers alike – because that's what “agape” is.
In spite of how it sounds in English, this passage really isn't a call for families to be divided. It is instead a call for families (and the human family as a whole) to love one another with a deeper love than ever. The divisions will remain. Jesus divides. Some believe and others don't and some believe different things. There's not much we can do about that. But if we achieve the love Jesus is calling us to with the words “ Anyone who loves their father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me” then we can live in peace in spite of disagreements, because our love won't be bound by the pettiness of disagreements. To be worthy of Jesus, you see, we have to at least try to demonstrate a love that goes beyond just those we're supposed to love and that is extended outward to all, regardless of whether we see them as worthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment