This is probably a stupid question.
But why is Jesus called the Prince of Peace, but also says that he came to bring division in Luke 12:51 and in Matthew 10:34? That has confused a little bit.
Hello Introverted1293:
That is a great question, and those verses you've cited do seem to smack of inconsistency when compared with each other, don't they?
At least this is what it looks like on first inspection when we compare the bit from Matthew with the other bit from Luke. However, I'd like to propose the following for your consideration:
Jesus didn't come to bring 'political' peace like that of
the Pax Romana which Caesar Augustus inaugurated in the Roman Empire. He instead came to be the Prince of Peace according to God's Will, and the peace He offers requires that each one of us does our best to get on the same page about His identity as Lord and Savior
BEFORE we can begin to have real social and spiritual peace not only with God, but also with each other.
So, in essence, we can say that Jesus REALLY DID come to bring peace........just not the kind that everyone is wanting these days, or even back then, especially the kind that comes by demanding peace on our own terms.
I know this sounds like it can be a tough pill for all of us to swallow, metaphorically speaking. And to some extent it is since that part about Jesus "not bringing peace but a sword" implies some kind of ideological conflict will be involved in the Christian life. But, however bad that sounds, we can know that the sword that He speaks of refers to His Word and not to carnal weapons of steel. [In fact, we see how the meaning of this begins to work itself throughout entire Book of Acts.]
