During “A debate, dialogue, and discussion” that took place between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath which was entitled “Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World,” Mr. Hitchens made the following statement:
“I’m glad he [Alister McGrath] condemns religious violence_Does Jesus say or does he not say, I come to bring not peace, but a sword. He does say that. Should I take that literally or metaphorically?”
The answer is, literally. This may be substantiate quite easily.
Let us take a moment to make a general point since there is much misunderstanding about what it means to take something literally. It means that you take it as it is intended. If something is intended in a strict/stiff sense (what people generally refer to as literal) you take it that way. If it is a historical reference, we take it as a historical reference. If something is metaphorical, we take it metaphorically. Etc.
In the text mentioned by Mr. Hitchens it is meant symbolically and in a strict/stiff sense. The “sword” is symbolic and the action that the sword performs is strict/stiff.
Mr. Hitchens is fallaciously correlating religious violence with Jesus’ statement. Let us consider the text, which is Matthew at 10:34:
“Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.”
Well, there you have it. Jesus was calling for all out religious war.
Well, let us take a moment to read the very next verse, the verse that would have alerted Mr. Hitchens that he is mistaken in his correlation. Verse 35 states:
“For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.’”
Obviously, “sword” is employed as symbolizing what a sword does: it separates, it divides. For example, Hebrews 4:12 makes this very point,
“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
Therefore, the setting against refers to a dispute about beliefs.
Thus, the text, within its context, is strictly/stiffly literally true. This is what I can prove since if you have been unfortunate enough to have been raised by for example, atheists or agnostics, and have come to believe in Jesus then it is quite possible, as has been my experience, that you have been mistreated simply for believing differently than an atheist or agnostic.
I understand that you may say likewise the other way around and I am sorry to hear about any mistreatment of anyone by anyone. The point was the text and Mr. Hitchens taking the text out of context in order to make a pretext for a prooftext. He, and we, ought to be skeptical enough to at least read the very next verse rather than finding a verse or half of a verse that we quote without citation and use as a springboard for a fallacious assertion.