Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was

What is crucial in our context is that in this similitude of the barren fig tree the time is strictly limited. It becomes a provisional time, a time for ultimate decision, a deadline. We could also say that it is a grace-given deadline. Everything depends on whether the fig tree will produce fruit after all. The gospels contain a whole series of similar texts that call for radical conversion and so speak of the last chance to secure one’s own existence.¹⁶

While the parable of the barren fig tree is only about the truth that the decision for conversion must happen immediately because God is allowing just a short period of time, the following little composition goes a step further:

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 one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.”

(Matt 10:34-36; cf. Luke 12:51-53)

“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” This saying of Jesus has led a whole series of twentieth-century writers astray, making them see Jesus as a social revolutionary—examples include the Social Democratic politician Karl Kautsky (1854–1938), the Austrian cultural historian Robert Eisler (1882–1949), or the English historian of religion Samuel G. F. Brandon (1907–1971). They, and others, saw Jesus as a kind of Marxist preacher of revolution who relied on violent exercise of force.¹⁷ Why else would he have talked about a “sword”?

But this interpretation mistakes the metaphor in Jesus’ words. “Sword” here stands for division, separation. That sense of “sword” needs explanation, of course. The discourse composition does this by means of a quotation from the prophet Micah, who depicts the judgment that will befall faithless Israel. That judgment includes the fact that no one can trust another any longer. The land is torn apart by fear and mistrust:

Put no trust in a friend,

    have no confidence in a loved one;

guard the doors of your mouth

    from her who lies in your embrace;

for the son treats the father with contempt,

    the daughter rises up against her mother,

the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

    your enemies are members of your own household. (Mic 7:5-6)

This quotation from Micah within the composition of Matthew 10:34-36 says that this very condition has now arrived. Division and rejection are everywhere! But why? The reason is directly connected with Jesus himself. Jesus has come to unite the people of God under God’s rule, and he has indeed brought many people together in this new condition. He has bridged chasms. He has assembled toll collectors and Zealots, sinners and saints, poor and rich at one table. His colorfully mixed band of disciples is a sign of this gathering movement.

But Jesus’ work in Israel has another side: it has led to divisions. Jesus has come up against bitter opposition, and that opposition has cut across the land and even across families. His own family attempted to bring him back home by force and put him under house arrest. His relatives said, “He has gone out of his mind” (Mark 3:20-21). But unfortunately it is not only that his appearance has led to separation and division. The metaphor of the sword that Jesus flings into society¹⁸ contains still more. Jesus has not only factually evoked division; he has desired it. Consider: “I have come to.…”

So Jesus intended the division; he desired the cleaving sword blade in the sense that he wanted decision, unambiguity, clarity before God. For him the reign of God is not some vague mist; it has clear contours. “No one can serve two masters,” Jesus says (Matt 6:24). He demanded that his hearers make a clear decision for the reign of God, and that necessarily led to divisions, indeed, to such as reach deep into the milieu of the closest social relationships, the home, the community of the extended family. Behind the little composition in Matthew 10:34-36 is the experience that, in light of Jesus’ appearance and his call to discipleship, the most intimate human connections have been broken. Jesus himself had to undergo that experience and it continued after Easter; it has not ceased even today.