They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

[temporal1]

Swords/knives, and the family of cutting-stabbing weapons, are nothing to sneeze at.
My elders talked about the potential lethality of hat pins.

“Understanding the Reality of Knife Attacks in the United States”
Knife attacks, while less frequently discussed than gun violence, represent a significant threat in the United States. The statistics reveal a stark reality: knives are the second most common weapon used in homicides, following firearms. This article explores the prevalence of knife-related violence in the U.S., highlights key statistics, and discusses why knives remain a weapon of choice for many perpetrators.
https://www.cvpsd.org/post/understandin ... ted-states

“Outside the Americas, Knives Are Often the Weapon of Choice in Homicides”
More than 130 people in Kunming, China, were injured when about ten men and women wielding knives began stabbing others at random
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180949953/

Nursing / Triage Review of Gunshot and Stab Wounds
https://nursingcecentral.com/lessons/tr ... ab-wounds/

A comparative audit of gunshot wounds and stab wounds to the neck in a South African metropolitan trauma service
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5210006/

R7ehr:
.. The teaching is about physically harming people. ..

[Soloist]

In my mind the issue isn't about the weapon, I could own a 50cal and have no ammo, I'm still complying. Even with ammo its very impractical for anything other then defending against massed enemy and I completely reject the notion that one can love someone while killing them.

Swords, rifles, missiles... doesn't matter.

Jesus isn't picking on the "tool" but the intent.

They that fight with a weapon will die by a weapon is not a prophecy (as quite demonstrated) but rather more of a philosophical statement.

Now perhaps its also an implication of the future too, but it doesn't appear that people are harmed by weapons specifically after death but a lake of fire.
Jesus didn't need Peter, but telling them to buy a sword was needed for prophecy. He didn't tell them, go buy one so each of you have a sword. Then He used the act to further reinforce "do good to those that persecute you" as well as condemn the fighting.

[Ernie]

3. Take it as a warning, and teaching. Namely, that Christs followers shouldn’t do it.

By this, Are you referring to the whole statement, are just the last part of the statement by Jesus?

I’m talking about “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Ok. Thanks. Just making sure that I am understanding.

I’m trying to think of a parallel that might help me understand your interpretation.

What about this…

A dad tells his teenage son…
“Keep your phone in your pocket. All who text while driving will die in accident.”
What the dad really means is, Don't do it. I don't want my children texting while driving.

Does this capture your idea at all? If not, might you be able to suggest a parallel?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

"All who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

To me, this is saying something about a way of life, a path. One that is entered into by an action. "Taking up the sword" means entering the arena where problems are solved with with violence, and the tools used to solve problems are weapons ("swords)". Soldiers (policemen)occupy this sphere, but so do the zealots (citizen revolutionaries), and those who wear the purple (Caesar and his governors). Jesus is saying "If you step into that sphere, you're committing yourself to a way of life where everyone's problems are solved with violence. You'll be there until you become a problem for someone else, and they will solve their problem with violence."

Using weapons/violence to solve a problem is the action that puts us into that social sphere, that space, that arena, where violence is the ultimate solution to any problem. It's hard to shake. It's like a drug. It's comforting to know that violence is always there, when all other options have failed, to give you a fighting chance.

But you CAN step out of that sphere. Jesus, of course, calls his followers to reject that sphere earlier in his teaching (Matthew 5). But beyond the desire to obey Jesus, he provides a practical reason to reject it: if you don't make the choice to leave that sphere entirely, you should be aware that violence can, and probably will, be used against you, not just by you.

[Ernie]

"All who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

To me, this is saying something about a way of life, a path. One that is entered into by an action. "Taking up the sword" means entering the arena where problems are solved with with violence, and the tools used to solve problems are weapons ("swords)". Soldiers (policemen)occupy this sphere, but so do the zealots (citizen revolutionaries), and those who wear the purple (Caesar and his governors). Jesus is saying "If you step into that sphere, you're committing yourself to a way of life where everyone's problems are solved with violence. You'll be there until you become a problem for someone else, and they will solve their problem with violence."

Using weapons/violence to solve a problem is the action that puts us into that social sphere, that space, that arena, where violence is the ultimate solution to any problem. It's hard to shake. It's like a drug. It's comforting to know that violence is always there, when all other options have failed, to give you a fighting chance.

But you CAN step out of that sphere. Jesus, of course, calls his followers to reject that sphere earlier in his teaching (Matthew 5). But beyond the desire to obey Jesus, he provides a practical reason to reject it: if you don't make the choice to leave that sphere entirely, you should be aware that violence can, and probably will, be used against you, not just by you.

Thank you. This describes my understanding as well. You did a good job at putting it into words.

One of the ironies about self-defense in our country is that those who have weapons for self-defense, are more likely to be harmed by weapons, than those who don't have weapons for self defense. I think this is implied in Jesus's teaching as well as in your comments above.

[JohnH]

I just think it is an incorrect application to expand it.
In Matthew 15:11 we see that it is “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;” a bad expansion would be to use this as a proof text to justify all sorts of wrong eating habits.
If the sword is figurative, then what’s really there to say that it is only figurative?

If "sword" in Biblical verses is literal and not figurative, then the verse we are discussing has no application to the modern world and hasn't really been relevant to warfare or personal defense for hundreds of years. Even in the 19th Century they were mostly decorative. Ordinary people didn't walk around wearing swords for self defense in early America. That practice more or less ended with the proliferation of handguns and rifles.

Idris Elba was just complaining that the epidemic of stabbing violence in the UK is partly due to people carrying around swords, and he wants a "sword licence" for anyone who e.g. has their grandpa's old ceremonial sword, a historic Japanese sword, etc.

[MattY]

So if you interpret "they that take the sword" in a very specific and literal manner, do you also interpret "shall perish with the sword" in a very specific and literal manner?

Which of the following seem plausible to you?
1. Very literally and specific. (the person will die via a weapon)
2. The person may or may not die via a weapon, but life won't be peaceful.
3. Will perish spiritually
4. Will experience life in a violent environment in which they or their friends and accomplices will die via weapons.
5. Other

5. It's a proverb - not a literal promise that applies to everyone, but it's a general principle that we can see happen - and it fits with the Sermon on the Mount, even if we don't take it literally or universally. E.g. Jesse James lived by the gun, and perished by the gun. In the same way, “Dishonest money dwindles away, but whoever gathers money little by little makes it grow.” And, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Those aren't always true for everyone either.

[temporal1]

Scriptural Truth can be and often is literal and figurative at once. And more than those 2 things.
Jesus’s Truth is perfect, it can’t be adequately defined or contained by human understanding alone - it was never meant to be.

It’s perfect and eternal. 1 Cor 13:12

The links at the top of this page give a glimpse of the bad and growing problem of sword/knife deaths.

(i believe) there is a cultural aspect.
When i was young, i read about how “the west” preferred the detachment of firearms, whereas other cultures had no problem with the bloody, violent, personal aspects of swords/knives. The reports above describe reasons why, esp that they’re cheap and accessble, not licensed or controlled.

Of course, “the west” is far too PC to suggest or even think of such things!
Everything must be processed through the fine sieve of PC chosen understanding.

England and Europe have been wrestling with unprovoked sword/knife attacks for years.
Too polite to call it out.

A brief glance at the above links describes a fair amount.

Years ago a policeman we met told us, straight-up, his experience was that knife wounds can be worse than gunshots.
The links above don’t reflect that. i’m not forgetting his warning, anyway. i don’t disregard his personal experience because of a report or stats from somewhere.

The answer, of course, is not more rigorous human law. More Jesus, less evil.

[Ken]

I just think it is an incorrect application to expand it.
In Matthew 15:11 we see that it is “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;” a bad expansion would be to use this as a proof text to justify all sorts of wrong eating habits.
If the sword is figurative, then what’s really there to say that it is only figurative?

If "sword" in Biblical verses is literal and not figurative, then the verse we are discussing has no application to the modern world and hasn't really been relevant to warfare or personal defense for hundreds of years. Even in the 19th Century they were mostly decorative. Ordinary people didn't walk around wearing swords for self defense in early America. That practice more or less ended with the proliferation of handguns and rifles.

I find that nonsensical. No rational and well intended person after being told to put away their sword, would think that a machete, or rapier, or an ax would be perfectly acceptable because they weren’t named specifically. Imagine Peter hearing Jesus, and then whipping out a spear and finishing the job, and then telling Jesus, “I did obey you. You only said to put away the sword, you didn’t say anything about a spear!”
I don’t think Jesus has a special ban on swords nor would Jesus have been fine with Peter shooting the person with a pistol instead.

The teaching is about physically harming people. Not about certain weapons being okay, and other weapons not okay. It’s not an ancient Geneva Conventions that allows for, spearing people to death in daylight, but not using swords in the dark.

I agree. That was my point. The passage isn’t literally about swords.

However i would take issue with your last point. Weapons aren’t simply about causing physical harm. They are also about the coercive threat of harm. Someone who uses weapons to hold up banks is living by the sword even if he never fires a shot. Weapons are used as coercion as well as to cause physical harm.

[R7ehr]

If "sword" in Biblical verses is literal and not figurative, then the verse we are discussing has no application to the modern world and hasn't really been relevant to warfare or personal defense for hundreds of years. Even in the 19th Century they were mostly decorative. Ordinary people didn't walk around wearing swords for self defense in early America. That practice more or less ended with the proliferation of handguns and rifles.

I find that nonsensical. No rational and well intended person after being told to put away their sword, would think that a machete, or rapier, or an ax would be perfectly acceptable because they weren’t named specifically. Imagine Peter hearing Jesus, and then whipping out a spear and finishing the job, and then telling Jesus, “I did obey you. You only said to put away the sword, you didn’t say anything about a spear!”
I don’t think Jesus has a special ban on swords nor would Jesus have been fine with Peter shooting the person with a pistol instead.

The teaching is about physically harming people. Not about certain weapons being okay, and other weapons not okay. It’s not an ancient Geneva Conventions that allows for, spearing people to death in daylight, but not using swords in the dark.

I agree. That was my point. The passage isn’t literally about swords.

However i would take issue with your last point. Weapons aren’t simply about causing physical harm. They are also about the coercive threat of harm. Someone who uses weapons to hold up banks is living by the sword even if he never fires a shot. Weapons are used as coercion as well as to cause physical harm.

I agree with the idea that using weapons directly as threats and coercion, is “taking up the sword”, even if blood is not spilt in that instance.

Jesus didn’t say “all who have a sword”, or “all who use the sword”.
He said “all who take up” or “all who draw the sword”.