Copyright, 2002, 2004, 2008, F. Michael Zimmerman
M't:26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
This is as close as Jesus ever came to articulating the popular aphorism that “violence begets violence.” And of course, those who already believe this precept will inevitably place this interpretation on His words. But can they show before the fact that this is what Christ meant? No. Most of us, however, have been so brainwashed with this precept that we may have difficulty imagining that Jesus could possibly have meant anything else. It is only when we remember that He never articulated that aphorism that the possibility might occur to us.
Christians have given the impression of being in two camps regarding this teaching of Jesus: pacifists who take it literally, and the rest who ignore it. But those of us who call Jesus our Lord cannot ignore it. Does that mean that we must take it literally? Not necessarily. One of the pitfalls of a strict literalism in interpreting Scripture can be illustrated by an oft-repeated parody of this teaching frequently found on the Internet. It says, “Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don’t.” The flippancy and irreverence of this sentiment should not blind us to the fact that it is taking a literal view of a frequent misquotation of this teaching of Christ. It also serves as a warning about misquotations and paraphrases. Christ says nothing in the above teaching about those who live by the sword. He says “they that take the sword”. Does that mean that the pacifist interpretation is correct? No. Pacifists tend to ignore the following Scripture that explains why Christ's disciples even had swords there in the first place:
Lu:22:36: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Lu:22:37: For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Lu:22:38: And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
How do we reconcile these two teachings? Is it one of the "contradictions" of Scripture that Christ's enemies love to throw into our teeth? No. It is actually quite simple to show that they go hand in hand. All we have to do is to know what interpretations we may safely rule out. That is, we need to know what Christ could not possibly have meant. Once we have ruled out what Christ could not have meant, we can then take a closer look at what is left.
We can safely rule out two kinds of interpretations of Christ's teaching in Mt. 26:52.
1. We can rule out any interpretation based on anything other than what Jesus actually said. If Christ did not say it, those who claim He did are mistaken or liars. However much or little wisdom there may be in their words, the words are theirs, not those of Jesus. Without proof that this is what Christ meant, taken from His own words, there is no need to read things into His words. If they cannot prove that they are talking about the same things that Jesus was talking about, there is no reason to suppose that Jesus meant anything like what they mean.
2. We can rule out any interpretation that would turn Christ's words into a demonstrable falsehood. Nicodemus knew better than to turn Christ's words into a patent absurdity when he asked his well-known rhetorical question (John 3:4). We would all do well to do likewise.
People love to misquote Mt. 26:52 as “those who live by the sword die by the sword” when some violent individual meets some kind of grisly end. But a moment's reflection will show that this could not be what the Lord Jesus Christ meant. It is indisputably true that many who live by the sword die by the sword. But it is also true that many who live by the sword do not meet this fate. And it is equally true that many who do not live by the sword die by the sword anyhow. Both choices carry their risks and at different times the risk of death one way will outweigh the risk of death the other way. And there may be many reasons for many who name Christ's name to consider death by the sword to be an acceptable risk. But this form of risk assessment misses the point of what Christ said in Mt. 26:52. Jesus and His disciples all knew the Book of Ecclesiastes. And even if His disciples had never covered that book in the synagogue, their occupations as fishermen would have given them a thorough practical understanding of the concept. The concept of risk was not in any way foreign to their thinking. If Christ did not talk about risk, then He did not mean risk!
We can rule out any interpretation based on anything other than what Jesus actually said.
Contrary to the way this passage is often misquoted, Jesus did not say "those who live by the sword die by the sword." And since He did not say this, it is safe to infer that He was not talking about this saying no matter how much wisdom it may contain. And even that wisdom is questionable to those who look honestly at the historical record. Although it is certainly true that those who live by the sword risk death by the sword, it is also true that sometimes those who do not live by the sword run an even bigger risk of violent death. But since Jesus did not say this, it is safe to infer that He was talking about something else.
Jesus speaks of certainty, not risk. He did not say that many who take the sword will perish by the sword. He did not say that all who take the sword risk death by the sword. His exact words (all Scripture quotations are KJV) are:
M't:26:52: … all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
So Christ speaks here of a certainty, not a mere risk that may be acceptable at certain times. Furthermore, he gives this as a reason for Peter to "Put up again thy sword into his place… ." Christ speaks here of certainty, not risk. To interpret this as risk is to disconnect His meaning from this commandment to Peter. If the reference were to the risk of death by the sword, Peter (and we) would be free to disregard this commandment if the risk of death by the sword becomes even greater for those who do not live by the sword. But Christ does not speak of an arrow that the adroit sword-wielder may be able to dodge. He speaks of a certain fate that will befall all them that take up the sword. The only question that remains is precisely whom or what Jesus meant by "all they" in this teaching. Once we identify those whom He meant by this phrase, we also know what He meant by "his [the sword's] place".
Pacifists tend to apply this teaching to individuals. But a moment's reflection will show that this interpretation is simply not true, either in the first century, the twenty-first century, or in any other known century.
We can rule out any interpretation that would turn Christ's words into a demonstrable falsehood.
Anyone can prove the falsity of an interpretation of Christ's words as applied to individuals. Just pick up a copy of any metropolitan newspaper. Turn to the obituaries. It is highly likely that on that page there will be the obituary of some military veteran who has recently died of old age. Such deaths happen frequently. Pacifists conveniently ignore them. But every such life story gives the lie to their interpretation of Christ's teaching about the sword! And as it is now, so it was then on the eve of Christ's crucifixion when He delivered this teaching.
Both during the ministry of John the Baptist and during the preaching of the Gospel, Roman soldiers were among the first Gentiles to be converted. And although many may have left military service as a result of their Christian faith, Scripture nowhere records a commandment to them to do so. Scripture never treats military service as if it were inherently sinful. And historically, most Roman soldiers were just poor boys trying to work their way up in the world. Just as it is now, so then, military service was a route of upward mobility for able-bodied young men of humble origins. The goal was a retirement with full Roman citizenship out somewhere in the provinces, there to live the life of a gentleman farmer on a Roman villa staffed with all the slaves any man could want. That was the Roman Dream, and it came true frequently enough to keep the Roman army supplied with fresh recruits.
We need not look merely to the Romans for examples. Jewish history was full of stories of men who had borne the sword when the time required it, then retired to a more peaceful life, there to die peacefully of old age or from some other nonviolent cause. That was what happened to Abraham, to Jacob, to Simeon, to Levi, to Moses, to Joshua, to King David, and to many others who had taken up the sword in their younger days. Of course all of them ran the risk of death by the sword. But Christ here speaks of certainty, not risk. And as applied to individuals, the certainty simply does not exist. And both Christ and His disciples knew that at the time!
Therefore, we can rule out an application of Christ's words to individuals who bear the sword. All it takes is one counterexample to give the lie to the pronoun all that Jesus used. And there are three whole categories from current history, Roman history contemporaneous with Christ's ministry, and Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament. The reader is free to choose which of these not to ignore.
If Jesus did not mean individuals, what did He mean? That is a good question. In fact, it is the most important question one can ask about this teaching. And the answer is amazingly simple.
God does not limit His concern to individuals! It is true that Scripture only speaks of individuals as having souls that can be eternally saved or eternally lost. And for that reason, individuals occupy a place of preeminence in the priorities revealed in Scripture. But this by no means proves that individuals are the only priority that God has. Although it is certainly true that all of us enter (or fail to enter) God's Kingdom as individuals, that Kingdom is more than a collection of such individuals. As far as Scripture discloses, only individuals can go to Heaven or Hell. God's concern for the affairs of this life and the next certainly begins with individuals. But it does not end there. God also declares that He judges the nations (Ps 2 i. a.). The Lordship of Christ is not limited to individuals!
Christ's teaching that "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" makes perfect sense when we understand that by "all they", He meant not individuals, but nations, political regimes, business interests, multinational corporations, empires, clans, families, and other larger units of human organization. Scripture usually refers to these as "crowns and thrones", but modern language manages to be not quite so concise. Applied to political, religious, and commercial organizations, it is certainly true that "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." This is the case even in a so-called "bloodless revolution", when we consider that such revolutions are invariably led by a civil magistrate, charged by God with the bearing of the sword (Romans 13:4). So when such a civil magistrate overthrows a previous regime, that regime may be said to have perished by the sword in the same way that we may speak of an individual as having “used a gun” to rob a store or to defend his home even if he never pulled the trigger. And those of us who have reached the age of adulthood have probably seen it happen more than once in our lifetimes. Notable recent examples include the upheavals in eastern Europe from 1989 to 1991, culminating in the breakup of the Soviet Union. Even when these revolutions were relatively bloodless, they all had leadership from those who could lawfully wield the sword! And the Communist regimes that fell perished by that sword. This is the fate that befalls every such regime -- even to those who wield the sword lawfully and righteously. Individuals who serve these regimes may escape this fate. But the regimes themselves will not.
So if Christ did not give this commandment to individuals, to whom did He give it? The answer is obvious, once we realize that He was talking about corporate entities. There is only one such corporate entity in evidence in the relationship between Jesus and Peter that night at Gethsemane. Christ was giving this commandment to His Church! He gave this commandment on the eve of His crucifixion, when He would fulfill His mission in the world. He gave it to His apostles, whose mission in the world was just beginning. Christ here speaks much as a commander-in-chief giving standing orders to His highest officers. He speaks as the Head of the Church to His apostles. He had previously given permission to His disciples to arm themselves as individuals for other reasons (Lk. 22:36). But in Mt. 26:52, Christ forbids His Church to use the sword as a tool to carry out her mission in the world. Peter may arm himself for self-defense as a man, as a husband, as a father, and as a member of his community. But Christ forbids him to use the sword as an Apostle of the Church! This teaching means, among other things, that Christ forbids the formation of any apostolic corps of warrior-priests to go spreading His gospel by fire and sword!
That might seem obvious to us today. But it was certainly not obvious on that night in Gethsemane!
From the time that Joshua took the Promised Land, the Old-Testament people of Israel had been founded by the sword and maintained by the sword. From that day at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses drew a line in the sand and inquired "Who is on the Lord's side?" (Ex:32:26), spiritual revival and renewal under the Old Covenant had gone hand in hand with the sword as the faithful exterminated their apostate brethren. Christ never condemns the Jews for this. The Old Testament abounds with accounts of leaders who used the sword lawfully, righteously, and in obedience to God's explicit commandments. But Mt. 26:52 Christ commands His church, the new Israel under the covenant He was shortly to ratify with His blood, to operate differently.
M't:26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place…
We can now identify what Jesus meant by "his place", the lawful use of the sword by His disciples. That place is in the hands of individuals who find it prudent to arm themselves for self-defense. It is in the hands of those in government service whose duty it is to execute God's wrath on evildoers (Rom. 13:4). It is not as a tool for the Church to use in carrying out her official business!
The Israel of the Old Covenant had been founded by the sword and maintained by the sword -- and that entire system was soon to perish by the Roman sword! Israel was about to become a prime example of what Christ was talking about in this teaching! Christ here commands the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16) not to use the sword in her official business. He permits His individual disciples to arm themselves for other reasons. In fact, in Lk. 22:36, he exhorts His disciples to arm themselves for self-defense:
Lu:22:36: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
If this is not an outright commandment to Christians to arm themselves, it is an exhortation that stops just short of one! But the sword is not lawful as a tool for the Church to use in carrying out her official business in the world.
There may be killing to be done in the spiritual warfare connected with the ministry of the Church. But it is not for the Church to carry it out. When there is killing that must be done, God either does it Himself or uses other instruments for that purpose. Most notably, He may use governments to do it (Ro:13:4). But the Church is never His instrument in killing His enemies.
The message of the Church to the world is "…'Repent, and be baptized…'…" (Ac:2:38). It is NOT and should NEVER BECOME, "Repent and be baptized -- or we shall kill you."