They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

[Ernie]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Kirk (Turning Point donors) typically hired about 5-7 armed security guards - guards who did immediately draw their weapons at the time of the shooting. Do you distinguish between purposefully taking the lives of others vs. self-defense in the verse that you quoted?

I don't have a dog in the hunt. Just curious about how you look at these matters.

The other day, Ben Shapiro said that political speech is fraught. From that I assume he meant that it is bound to stir up anger at some point. Although Charlie wasn’t pointing guns at people, he was advocating for a certain political platform that if implemented by the government would essentially result in the government enforcing the policies of that platform with the force of arms. Like every other political platform ever.

So although it is several steps removed from taking up the sword, political speech is related to the power of the sword. This is why Anabaptists don’t see the role of politician and policeman that differently.

[Ernie]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Kirk (Turning Point donors) typically hired about 5-7 armed security guards - guards who did immediately draw their weapons at the time of the shooting. Do you distinguish between purposefully taking the lives of others vs. self-defense in the verse that you quoted?

I don't have a dog in the hunt. Just curious about how you look at these matters.

Absolutely not. That is was merely sharing thoughts on the issue. His comment is closer to my own, where I observed that when one takes up the sword, you die by the sword.

I once was in Egypt in a small group and we had an armed guard with us everywhere. Apparently hired with our money by a guide. (I didn’t know that we were going to have an armed guard).

No, while Kirk didn’t believe in nonresistance, and he may have promoted force, he was not taking up the sword himself.

[Ernie]

I think the President has two roles, civil leader and military leader. I think that if a nation is complete not at war, all its soldiers are at home on their bases, there is no conflicts, I would say the President is not currently taking up the sword.
He’s still in a problematic situation for a Christian. And he should “do violence to no man” and quit his job. But in that moment he isn’t taking up the sword, due to the civil part of his job. When he has soldiers in action, as commander in chief he has taken up the sword.
I’d have an easier time thinking that a General has the sword “in his hand” constantly, even in peace time, since that is his full time job. But he too would be able to “do violence to no man” in a theoretical true complete peacetime.

Bin Ladin was head of an active armed militia group. Kirk was not. The President is a civilian who usually has his armed group killing people.

I think if the President is assassinated because of his military action, that would be Biblical tit for tat.
However, if the President was assassinated because of some deranged, mentally ill person wanted to marry Melania, that is not.
And if some was aiming at a deer, and the bullet strayed traveled two miles and killed the President? Not hardly taking up the sword and dying by the sword.

If, under all these circumstances we think it is Biblical tit for tat, and then we layer over top the idea that anyone who merely talks sympathetically towards gun rights? Then we could have some civilian who never touched a weapon in their life, being killed by accidental stray bullet being judged as dying by the sword because they took up the sword. No.

Kirk’s shooter took up the sword. Not Kirk.

I don't agree with your assessment of the President compared to a general.
Military ranks go from E-1 to O-10 (except during time of war) After O-10 there is the CNO who is currently Admiral Caudle, above him is John Phelan
the Secretary of the Navy, then there is the Secretary of Defense who is Pete Hegseth. After that we have the President himself, Trump.
(we actually had to memorize this as enlisted as well as some presidential succession members)

The actions of the CNO are directed by the president and the actions taken on a weekly if not daily action basis of killing combatants or "smugglers" is directly reflecting the President's office.

Al Qaeda was indirectly started by CIA support against Russia during the Soviet Afghan war and was effectively a militia. Bin Laden was a leader who ended as more of a figurehead without direct control in the final years of his life and would be comparable to any rogue nation's leader.
My opinion is that if the President is not wielding the sword of office always, then likewise the same should be true for Bin Laden. Our country determined what to call them, Ie terrorists, prior to them turning on the Saudi, we would have called them freedom fighters against Russia.

Now another civilian leader such as the Speaker of the House of Representatives would fit better in this dual set you proposed as they are in the line of succession but don't have military control outside of perhaps impact on funding.

I don't look at Kirk as having been wielding the sword, I do look at President Trump as doing so.

[Ernie]

I apply, "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword," to anyone who uses weapons, relies on weapons, commands the use of weapons, hires people to carry weapons, glories in weapons, or participates in the election of those who use weapons. How is this not a plausible interpretation of what Jesus was getting at?

[Soloist]

I apply, "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword," to anyone who uses weapons, relies on weapons, commands the use of weapons, hires people to carry weapons, glories in weapons, or participates in the election of those who use weapons. How is this not a plausible interpretation of what Jesus was getting at?

Why not evaluate your relationship to police and the military protection our country has based on your sub points here.

[ken_sylvania]

I apply, "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword," to anyone who uses weapons, relies on weapons, commands the use of weapons, hires people to carry weapons, glories in weapons, or participates in the election of those who use weapons. How is this not a plausible interpretation of what Jesus was getting at?

What did Jesus tell Peter immediately prior to this? I believe he told Peter to put his sword into its sheath - i.e., to continue to carry it, not to throw it away. And just hours previously he had told the disciples to buy some swords if they didn't have them already.

I don't know what all Jesus was meaning, but to me your interpretation seems somewhat over-broad.

[Ernie]

I apply, "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword," to anyone who uses weapons, relies on weapons, commands the use of weapons, hires people to carry weapons, glories in weapons, or participates in the election of those who use weapons. How is this not a plausible interpretation of what Jesus was getting at?

Why not evaluate your relationship to police and the military protection our country has based on your sub points here.

I don't feel like I rely on them. My taxes support them... I haven't decided to do like some do who deduct taxes that they do not want spent on military, etc.
Do I benefit from them? Sure.

[Ernie]

What did Jesus tell Peter immediately prior to this? I believe he told Peter to put his sword into its sheath - i.e., to continue to carry it, not to throw it away.

Was self-defense the only thing they used swords for?

And just hours previously he had told the disciples to buy some swords if they didn't have them already.

The disciples were not converted yet. And might Jesus been wanting to teach them a lesson?
Do you think he would have given the same instruction after Pentecost?

I can't imagine telling a group of young men to "Get your firearms. If you don't have one, get one. It's going to be a rough night with the police. and the later, "My kingdom is not of this world, so I don't need one."
But then I don't have the ability to heal ears either.

I don't know what all Jesus was meaning, but to me your interpretation seems somewhat over-broad.

That is possible. That is why I started the thread.

[Soloist]

I don't feel like I rely on them. My taxes support them... I haven't decided to do like some do who deduct taxes that they do not want spent on military, etc.
Do I benefit from them? Sure.

I’m not arguing that you are under the verse, but are you saying you won’t call the police?

[ken_sylvania]

What did Jesus tell Peter immediately prior to this? I believe he told Peter to put his sword into its sheath - i.e., to continue to carry it, not to throw it away.

Was self-defense the only thing they used swords for?

And just hours previously he had told the disciples to buy some swords if they didn't have them already.

The disciples were not converted yet. And might Jesus been wanting to teach them a lesson?
Do you think he would have given the same instruction after Pentecost?

I can't imagine telling a group of young men to "Get your firearms. If you don't have one, get one. It's going to be a rough night with the police. and the later, "My kingdom is not of this world, so I don't need one."
But then I don't have the ability to heal ears either.

I don't know what all Jesus was meaning, but to me your interpretation seems somewhat over-broad.

That is possible. That is why I started the thread.

Since I don't understand the point of Jesus' instruction to take swords, it's hard for me to say whether he would have given the same instruction later. It's not something that I think would really change my understanding of what nonresistance is though. I think Jesus taught clearly enough about loving our enemies and doing good to those who hate us that we can clearly understand that we should have no parts with violence and self-defense.