They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

[JohnH]

It would appear Jesus is fine with his followers carrying their swords - but not using them to strike someone.

[Ernie]

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?

I am fine with calling the police, not in the sense of needing them or relying on them to protect me (I can only get that from the Lord), but rather from the standpoint of letting the other kingdom know what their people are up to.
It would be similar to me calling my neighbor if his mean bull got out of its pen and was harassing anyone who tried to leave my house.

A difference is that with humans, my goal would be to minister spiritually to the person in any way that I could, with or without police involvement. I would have no such interest or desire with the bull.

[Ken]

One might plausibly argue that Jesus is using "sword" as a metaphor for "violence". That is certainly how we need to apply the passage today since on one really carries or uses swords anymore.

If we re-write the passage to mean: "Those who live by violence will die by violence" then it makes more sense in a modern context. In other words, don't organize your life around committing violence. Which would include actually using violence to do things like commit robbery, murder, etc. Or using the threat of violence to extort people (holding a sword at someone's throat to rob them).

One could easily argue that someone who is merely armed in self defense with no intent to use their weapons offensively is not living by the sword, or living by violence. They are simply behaving prudently in a violent world.

Is this the correct interpretation of this passage in Matthew? I have no idea. People smarter than me have been arguing about this passage for two millennia. But I think it is a reasonable interpretation since Jesus doesn't tell Peter to throw away his sword, merely to keep it put away.

That said, I personally don't go around armed. I haven't owned a firearm since I left Alaska. I tend to believe we live in a safe and civilized world and that deadly weapons are more properly the monopoly of law enforcement and armed forces. Statistically guns in the home are far more likely to be used against people you know or yourself in accidents, suicide, or domestic violence. Than to defend against a violent stranger.

I also think there is a deeper meaning to Jesus' words. I think that "living by the sword" by arming ones self actually changes one's mindset. The most paranoid people I know are the gun nuts with big gun collections. I don't know it it is rationalization or what. But I think guns are actually poison to the mind. Obsessing about guns and arming oneself just makes one more fearful and suspicious of those around you. I have a cousin who basically can't even go to Wal-Mart without concealed-carry packing his Glock. Which is frankly ridiculous. But his guns seem to make him much more suspicious and fearful of his fellow neighbors and citizens and less charitable towards others*.

So maybe Jesus was talking about that as well.

*I think cars have a similar effect on the psyche. For example, I have noticed that my wife behaves MUCH more aggressively and impatiently when she is behind the wheel than say around people in a store or sidewalk. Something about being surrounded by 2 tons of steel and interacting with other steel machines is dehumanizing. And we behave in ways that we wouldn't when interacting with people face to face. So objects can actually change our mindset and behavior.

[R7ehr]

Person 1:
Has no qualms about violence in principle. But does not have a weapon.

Person 2:
Has great conviction about never using violence. But does have a weapon.

Person 1 may have the spirit of harm, but he hasn’t taken up any weapon. Person 2 may be a hunter and is carrying a weapon, but has no spirit of harm.

I find it pretty hard to say that either of these are “taking up the sword”. Therefore, I can’t see how either of them can be accused of using a weapon in contradiction to Jesus comment. At that moment, there was a literal sword that was used. Jesus didn’t condemn the sword until it was used to harm a person. Prior to that, Jesus knew Peter’s heart. He knew the willingness to do violence was in Peter’s heart. And he waited until it actually manifested.

There are other verses we go to deal with Person 2. I think it’s poor exegesis to extrapolate this particular warning too far.

Yes, to have violence in one’s heart is sin. But I’m not convinced that telling my Methodist neighbor that he is at risk of perishing by the sword because although he has no weapons, he has no problem with using them in principle, he is at risk of Matthew 26:52, is going to be a very persuasive argument.

[Ernie]

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

[R7ehr]

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

Probably number 5. While I do believe he was talking quite literally and specific (#1), I don’t see it meant as a curse or guarantee. It is a general teaching and warning.
I think it is obvious that not everyone who physically takes the physical sword, physically dies by it. I think we all agree with that.
So what are the options? I think we can either-
1. Say it isn’t true at all, making Jesus a liar.
2. Expand the meaning to include other things.
3. Take it as a warning, and teaching. Namely, that Christs followers shouldn’t do it.

I think number three is the most straightforward and simplest understanding.

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?

[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?

[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.

[R7ehr]

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.”

[R7ehr]

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.