Who are peacemakers? They who cry Peace, Peace, when there is no peace? They who keep on good terms with the world by catering to the things of the world and conforming to the ways of the world? If the world had true peace to give on its own terms and by its own ways, such peace could easily be had; but, in all the ages, has the world proved its ability to give true peace? Has it ever been known to give lasting and satisfying peace? The fact is, the world knows not such peace. It possesses it not. Therefore it never understood the peace which Jesus brought to the earth. His peace was not the world's peace. The peace he had to give was heavenly, not earthly. He had no peace for sin and sinners. He brought not material but spiritual peace. He taught a peace which could be secured only by living away from and above the fleshly senses. He came with no flattering words of compromise with evil. He came carrying in his hand no palm of diplomatic concession to things of the sensual world. He came rather to rebuke these things, that the world's false sense of peace might give place to a true sense thereof. Hence his words: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Yet the birth of him who made this apparently parodoxical declaration was heralded by a "multitude of the heavenly host" as the advent of an era of "peace, good will to men." And in harmony with this angelic message, he said in his greatest sermon—the Sermon on the Mount—"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." The peace, then, which he came to establish was not the world's sense of peace, but the peace which passeth the understanding of the world's sense; that peace which rises above the comprehension of mortals.
Who, then, have been the real peacemakers of the world? Those who have made themselves popular with the world by conforming to its methods, or those who have come thrusting the sword of the Spirit into the world's very heart? Jesus, in his life and teaching, answered this question for all time. So much did his teaching differ from that of his day and age that his definition of peace was not only not understood, but rejected. So much did it interfere with the notions of peace which then obtained, that the peace-makers and believers of peace, in his time, spat upon and reviled him. To no class was his teaching of peace so disturbing as to the men who were accounted the wise and learned of his time: the leaders of thought; the teachers; the rabbis; the doctors and professors. These were the first to assail his teachings and to declare them to be in opposition to all true teaching and all sound doctrine. They were bitter in their denunciations of him, and so enraged did they become that they falsely accused him of all manner of things. He was a glutton, a wine-bibber, a stirrer up of strife, a breaker-up of households, all that was bad, immoral, and debased. Thus was the great Peace-maker regarded by those whom he would fain have helped and saved. One of the accusations against him was that he was a friend of sinners. And truly he was. While compassionate toward the more common sinners,—those who were accounted the greatest sinners by the scribes and Pharisees,—he was severe in his denunciation of the other and higher class of sinners. Yet his sublime purpose was to bring peace to these as well as to all others. He hoped, by the very severity of his rebukes, to save them from the damnation of their own blind self-righteousness. His success with them was not great, but the common people heard him gladly and rallied in scores to his standard.
