Some suggest that Matthew 26:52 is a strong indictment against war, placing it against verses where Jesus appears to advocate fighting...

> Matt. 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

It should first be noted that this verse is in the form of proverbial wisdom, and is therefore not an absolute advocation of pacifism, as not every single person who has drawn a sword has died by the same means. Hence there is neither contradiction of nor relevance to other verses cited as contradictory. Moreover, that this is not intended as a statement in pacifism is seen in that the saying also carries an eschatological overtone that may be seen through this parallel, from an Aramaic Targum on Isaiah 50:11:

> Behold, all you that kindle a fire, that take the sword: go, fall into the fire you have kindled, and fall by sword you have taken.

Expressed as this is, it means that "God's will is being fulfilled and nothing can hinder it." It is not strictly about whether one literally dies by the sword.

The idiom "living by the sword" denotes a life of aggressive violence. Having a sword does not necessitate such a life, as it could be used for protection. In the Lukan passage, Jesus addresses the disciples to buy a sword if they lacked one. One can reasonably suppose that Jesus is using a figure of speech, for when the disciples took His words in the wrong fashion, producing but two swords, Jesus tells them that the two swords are sufficient. If Jesus were telling them to live by the sword, it would be unreasonable to think that a scant two swords would suffice for a group of at least eleven men.

In the Matthean passage, Jesus is clear about not promulgating the Christian cause by using force—He corrects the disciples' mistaken notion that the cause would be furthered by preventing His arrest.

What about verses cited in opposition?

> Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

It is clear that "sword" here is a figurative reference to personal division, not to literal weaponry. Consider the verses previous to these to see who Jesus indicates will be prone to violence (Matthew 10:16-33).

Far from advocating violence, Jesus is predicting that Christians will become the victims of violence: it is the persecutors who wield the sword and become the foes.

> Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Is this an advocation of war? Some think Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble, noting that Peter scuffled with the Temple guards. That is an overstated case: the passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords, and the so-called "scuffle" consisted of Peter slicing off a servant's ear, followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away. Raymond Brown has rightly admonished those who read military intent into this passage: "...such an isolated instance of spontaneous defense that could have occurred in a melee of any period is scarcely indicative of belonging to a resistance movement."

The swords in question were not medieval longswords. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword—a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one's adornment. This weapon would not be of much use against the Temple guards, much less against armed Roman soldiers.

> John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Within the context of John 14, this is clearly "peace" in a spiritual sense and has nothing to do with physical warfare. The word "peace" here is eirene, and can mean peace, prosperity, quietness, or rest, as in Matt. 10:13. Obviously this is not "peace" in the sense of the opposite of fighting and war.

Problem: When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter took out his sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Jesus told Peter to put back the sword because those who take up the sword will die by the sword. Some use this verse to support pacifism and to oppose capital punishment, which the Bible affirms elsewhere (Gen. 9:6).

Solution: Total pacifism is not taught in this Scripture. Indeed, Abraham was blessed by the Most High God (Gen 14:19) after engaging in a war against the unjust aggression of the kings who had captured his nephew Lot. In Luke 3:14, soldiers come to inquire of John the Baptist about what they should do. John never told them to leave the army. Likewise, Cornelius, in Acts 10, was a centurion. He was called a devout man (v. 2), and the Scriptures say that the Lord heard the prayers of Cornelius (v. 4). When Cornelius becomes a Christian, Peter does not tell him to leave the army. Also, in Luke 22:36–38, Christ says that the one who has no sword should sell his robe and buy one. The apostles responded saying that they had two swords. Jesus responded saying that “it was enough.” In other words, they did not need to get rid of their swords. The Apostle Paul accepted the protection of the Roman army to save his life from unjust aggressors (Acts 23). Indeed, he reminded the Roman Christians that God had given the sword to the king who did not bear it in vain (Rom. 13:1–4). When Jesus returns to earth, He will come with the armies of heaven and will war against the kings of the earth (Rev. 19:11–19). So, from the beginning to the end, the Bible is filled with examples of the justification of war against evil aggressors.

What, then, did Jesus mean when He commanded Peter to put away his sword? Peter was making two mistakes in using his sword. First, while the Bible permits the sword by the government for civil purposes (Rom. 13:1–4), it does not endorse its use for spiritual ends. It is to be used by the state, not by the church. Second, Peter’s use was aggressive, not purely defensive. His life was not being unjustly threatened. That is, it was not clearly an act of self-defense (Ex. 22:2). Jesus appears to have endorsed the use of the sword in civil self-defense (Luke 22:36), as did the Apostle Paul (Acts 23).

Likewise, capital punishment is not forbidden in Scripture, but rather was established by God. Genesis 9:6 affirms that whoever sheds man’s blood, the blood of the killer will also be shed. Numbers 35:31 makes a similar statement. In the NT, Jesus recognized that Rome had capital authority and submitted to it (John 19:11). The Apostle Paul informed the Romans that governing authorities are ministers of God and that they still possessed the God-given sword of capital authority (13:1, 4). So Jesus in no way did away with the just use of the sword by civil authorities. He simply noted that those who live lives of aggression often die by the same means.