Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword. “Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword!” - the history of the famous phrase Came to us with a sword

Quote from the Bible, words of Jesus Christ. Chapter 26 of the Gospel of Matthew describes how they came to arrest Jesus, the betrayer. One of Jesus' supporters decided to fight for him (chapter 26, pp. 51-52):

“51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus, stretching out his hand, drew his sword, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

52. Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for everything those who take the sword will die by the sword;".

The Revelation of John the Theologian (chapter 13, p. 10) says:

“Whoever leads into captivity will himself go into captivity; whoever kills with the sword must himself be killed with the sword.”

This phrase from the Bible became the basis of the famous expression attributed to Alexander Nevsky.

Examples

“The history of mankind is filled with proof that physical violence does not contribute to moral regeneration and that the sinful inclinations of man can only be suppressed by love, that evil can only be destroyed by good, that one must not rely on the strength of the hand to protect oneself from evil, that real security for people is in kindness, long-suffering and mercy, that only the meek will inherit the earth, and those who take up the sword will perish by the sword."

“They came at us, having countless bows and a lot of beautiful armor. Their banners and clothes were striking in luxury and wealth. Their helmets emitted light."

This is exactly how the Russian knights of the Livonian Order saw the Russians on the ice of Lake Peipsi on April 5, 1242. For many of them, this sight turned out to be their last.

But let me! What other “most beautiful armor” and “helmets emitting light” do the Russians have, when since childhood we have seen in the movies - even heroic, but still beggars fought against German dog-knights clad in armor, in horse-length ports, tattered sheepskin coats and bast shoes?! The weapon is a shaft that came to hand. And as for the armor - the memorable dying breath of the blacksmith-warrior: “Eh, the chain mail is short...” Thank you very much Sergei Eisenstein- his film " Alexander Nevsky"was so good that it almost replaced historical truth.

Sweet Eurolife

And it’s good that not all of it. Despite the clown shirts of the Novgorodians embroidered with roosters and bagels, the basis remained quite reliable - the battle took place, it was large-scale, ours won the victory and saved their land from terrible devastation and even complete destruction.

Although some people are trying to dispute these truths. They say that the battle was small and did not decide anything. And the Germans are not so bad, you see, and they would restore order with us. And in general, Alexander Nevsky should not have fought with the knights, but on the contrary, unite and together give a good attack to the Tatar-Mongols. After all, he could have integrated with advanced Europe, but instead he groveled before the wild steppes and recognized the power of the Horde.

It is not a bad idea for such dreamers to remind what happened to those Slavic peoples who nevertheless had the imprudence to fall for the sweet speeches of the Germans about a well-fed life together in the then European Union - the Holy Roman Empire. Let's say the Slezan tribe was lucky - at least the name Silesia remained on the map from them, which, however, is rarely remembered. And they don’t remember the Bodrichi tribe at all. And rightly so - their princes caved in to the German emperor, and right by the time of Alexander Nevsky, this once Slavic land was called Mecklenburg, and the population, from the nobility to the commoners, spoke and believed in German.

Of course, the Russian prince could not quote the poems Sergei Mikhalkov: “Our people will not allow Russian fragrant bread to be called the word “Brot.” But, apparently, he knew history well. And he thought in approximately the same categories as the Soviet poet. And the Germans did not behave like good boys on the lands they captured from him, as evidenced by the chronicle of the Livonian Order: “We did not allow a single Russian to escape unharmed. Those who defended themselves were killed, those who fled were overtaken and killed. Screams and lamentations were heard. A great cry began everywhere in that land.” No, the Tatars killed and burned no less. But at least they didn’t rename Russian cities and put their own administration in them, didn’t introduce polygamy in Russia and didn’t force everyone to drink kumiss and eat horse meat en masse. The Germans, as soon as they took Pskov, planted two imperial officials there and began to introduce their own laws, introduce their customs and even language.

Wars in ancient armor. Reconstruction. Photo: www.russianlook.com

Whitefish Death

Is it possible to come to an agreement with such people? And, most importantly, against whom? Against those very Tatars from whom exactly a year before the Battle of the Ice this illustrious and brilliant knighthood fled without memory, dropping its pants. Yes, so famously that all of Europe froze in horror: “Significant fear of these barbarians gripped even distant countries, France and Spain. In England, trade with the continent ceased for a long time due to panic.” And the “almighty” Holy Roman Emperor, in response to the demand Batu about humility he wrote humbly: “Being an expert in falconry, I could become a falconer at Your Majesty’s court.” By the way, the defeat of the knights was really difficult - in that battle with the Tatars, six brothers of the German Order, three novice knights and two sergeants died. This is a lot, considering that according to German custom, behind each brother knight there were not dozens of his subordinates, as in France, but from one to several hundred.

Their logic was transparent - what didn’t work out with the Tatars should work out with the defeated and bloodless Russians, who have been slaughtered by the Mongol hordes for five years now. Maybe they really expected to meet a rabble of bastard men with drekoly? It is quite acceptable, judging by the somewhat stunned tone of the author of the Livonian Chronicle: “In the kingdom of Russia, people turned out to be of a very tough character. They did not hesitate, they got ready for a hike and galloped towards us. Many were in shining armor, their helmets shining like crystal." These “shining helmets” and other wealth made an indelible impression on the Germans. Of course, the desire to tear them off the Russian corpses was great, but it turned out a little differently: “20 brother knights were killed there, and 6 were captured.” Few? Let us remind you that in the battle with the Tatars the order lost four times (!) less.

Of course, it was very shameful to suffer such a defeat from the “Slavic barbarians”. Therefore, in this chronicle we are almost for the first time encountering a story familiar to many from the series “the Germans were filled with corpses.” Then, however, it sounded a little different: “The Russians had such an army that perhaps sixty people attacked each German.” It's funny that 700 years later, the descendants of these same knights, who had painted crosses on their tank turrets, fled in the same way, smearing bloody snot, from the same places. And in the same way they complained about Russian weapons and “wonderful armor”: “They had a T-34 tank, but we didn’t, it’s not fair!” Yes, I was. And back in 1242, we had Prince Alexander Nevsky, who drove the Germans across the lake for almost seven miles. And he drove some of those escaping to the place where a month earlier the little guys were catching whitefish. That's what it's called - sigovitsa. The ice there is very thin, with holes. So some of the knights really played to the bottom of Lake Peipsi - legends and myths, unlike the vanquished, rarely lie.

Alexander Nevsky, who didn’t say anything like that

However, the words “whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword” still has a primary source. This is the Gospel of Matthew

47 And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
48 But the one who betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying: Whomever I kiss, He is the One, take Him.
49 And immediately coming up to Jesus, he said: Rejoice, Rabbi! And kissed Him.
50 Jesus said to him, Friend, why have you come? Then they came and laid their hands on Jesus and took Him.
51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus, stretching out his hand, drew his sword, and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for everything, ; (chapter 26)

It is interesting that another apostle, Mark, describing the scene of the arrest of the Teacher, does not say anything about the sword and death.

43 And immediately, as He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a multitude of people with swords and staves, from the chief priests and scribes and elders.
44 But the one who betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying: Whomever I kiss, He is the One; take Him and lead him carefully.
45 And having come, he immediately approached Him and said: Rabbi! Rabbi! and kissed Him.
46 And they laid their hands on Him and took Him.
47 One of those standing there drew a sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
48 Then Jesus said to them: You came out as if against a thief with swords and staves to take Me (Gospel of Mark: 14)

And the Apostle Luke tells this story this way:

47 While He was still saying this, a crowd appeared, and ahead of them walked one of the twelve, called Judas, and he came to Jesus to kiss Him. For he gave them this sign: Whomever I kiss, He is the one.
48 Jesus said to him: Judas! Do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?
49 But those who were with Him, seeing where things were going, said to Him: Lord! Shouldn't we strike with a sword?
50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
51 Then Jesus said, “Leave it, that’s enough.” And touching his ear, he healed him.
52 And Jesus said to the chief priests and rulers of the temple and the elders who were assembled against Him, “As if you came out against a thief with swords and staves to take Me?”
53 Every day I was with you in the temple, and you did not raise your hands against Me, but now is your time and the power of darkness.
54 They took Him and led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest. Peter followed from afar. (Gospel of Luke, chapter 22)

And here there is not a word about “those who take the sword will die by the sword.”
The Evangelist John has a slightly different interpretation of the event

3 So Judas, having taken a detachment of soldiers and ministers from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 And Jesus, knowing all that would happen to Him, went out and said to them, “Whom are you looking for?”
5 They answered: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: It is I. And Judas, His betrayer, stood with them.
6 And when he said to them, “It is I,” they retreated back and fell to the ground.
7 Again he asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” They said: Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered: I told you that it was I; So, if you are looking for Me, leave them, let them go, -
9 That the word He spoke might be fulfilled: “Of those whom You gave Me, I have not destroyed any.”
10 Now Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
11 But Jesus said to Peter, Sheathe your sword; Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?
12 Then the soldiers, and the captain, and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound Him (Gospel of John, chapter 18)

There are more specifics here. It turns out that Peter was waving the sword, and the man who lost his ear was called Malchus, but again nothing about the warning “those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” All in all, it's a dark matter.

Application of the Gospel text in literature

— “You speak well about stolen cattle, but it’s a pity that you know little about the forgotten Christ: you sharpen the sword, you destroy with the sword, and you yourself may die by the sword"(N. S. Leskov “The Legend of Conscientious Danil”)
— “Is it really possible to practice with the sword when the Lord said that everyone who takes up the sword will die by the sword? (L. N. Tolstoy “The Kingdom of God is within you”)
— “Put your sword in its sheath. He who lifts the sword will die by the sword...“And he, the prince, the murderer of Kostogorov, must become a suicide” (N. E. Heinze “Prince of Taurida”)
— “The first gathered the tribes and peoples of the earth under the power of the Sword. But he who takes the sword will die by the sword. And Rome perished” (D. S. Merezhkovsky “Resurrected Gods. Leonardo da Vinci”)
— “Let this heretic perish according to the law, for it is said: he who raises the sword, let him perish by the sword!"(M. N. Zagoskin “Bryn Forest”)

St. John Chrysostom

Blzh. Hieronymus of Stridonsky

Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

But if the one who is appointed as an avenger of the wrath of God against the one who does evil does not wear the sword in vain, why will the one who takes up the sword perish by the sword? And from what sword? It is from that sword of fire that turns before paradise (Gen. 3:24), and from the sword of the Spirit, which is described among the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:11-17).

Blzh. Theophylact of Bulgaria

Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Origen

Art. 52-54 Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword; or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will present to Me more than twelve legions of Angels? how will the Scriptures be fulfilled, that this must be so?

And look: after the Lord said to Peter: Return your sword to its place(which is characteristic of patience), and returned the cut off ear, as another evangelist speaks of (which was a proof of His highest goodness, as well as divine power), only then did He utter these words, so that they would be true due to His previous words and deeds, so that Those present, even if they did not remember His previous benefits, would remember the present ones.

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.

Evfimy Zigaben

Then Jesus said to him: Return your knife to its place: for those who take the knife with the knife will perish.

He reproached him and showed him that there was no need to use a sword to protect God; This, of course, prohibited all weapons. Everyone who took the knife...- there is a prophecy about the destruction of the Jews who came to Him. John (18:11) says that Jesus Christ said: the cup which the Father has given me, shall not the Imam drink it?? showing that all this is done not by their authority, but by the permission of the Father, and that until his death He was obedient to the Father.

Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew.

Lopukhin A.P.

Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

(Luke 22:51; John 18:11) . The Savior commands Peter to leave his knife unused. The following is the reason why this is so. Alford believes “they will die by the sword” commandment and says that here is not only the future, but also an imperative future: let them perish with the sword or must perish. With such an interpretation, the meaning of Christ's words would be clear; but in the original there is no imperative mood of the future tense. Hilary says: “Not everyone who carries a sword is usually killed by the sword. Many die from fever or from some other case - those who use the sword either as judges or due to the need to resist robbers.” Augustine found it difficult to interpret these words. Others think that there is a general thought here, reminiscent of the ancient law of revenge (Gen. 9:6), or a popular expression (proverb), according to which everyone is punished by his shortcomings (cf. Rev. 13:10). These words cannot be attributed only to Peter, because, regardless of their general meaning, there is no doubt that Peter never after that raised a sword against anyone and, however, he himself died from the sword; or that the saying referred to the Jews who died from the sword of the Romans, because in this very crowd that took Christ, it was the Romans who probably wielded swords. There is nothing left to do but to understand the expression only in the general sense; and if we open the Old Testament Bible, we will find many similar general sayings, for example, in Sirach, in Proverbs, etc., which cannot be taken in a completely unconditional sense, not allowing any exceptions. Likewise, the words of Christ admit of many exceptions, without ceasing to be completely true in their general meaning. What is certain is that Christ, speaking His words, forbade all people to have a sword and use it as a defense or to carry out violence. The old man's deviations from this truth due to necessity or some other reasons can have dangerous consequences for himself - by raising a sword, you ipso approve of the raising of it by others, and this can fall on his own head.

Explanatory Bible.

The Novgorod prince allegedly said this phrase when the ambassadors of the Livonian Order arrived in Veliky Novgorod to ask for “eternal peace” after the defeat in the Battle of the Ice. The source of the conviction that was strengthened in the public consciousness was Sergei Eisenstein’s film “” (1939), which formed a whole complex of myths about Alexander Nevsky and the role of the battle on the ice of Lake Peipsi in April 1242. Since then, the statement of the hero Nikolai Cherkasov, who played the main role in Eisenstein’s film, has been firmly associated with the name of the Novgorod prince.

Usage examples

There were another three hundred years of shame and humiliation ahead; for another three hundred years Rus' paid tribute to the khans of the Golden Horde. But the words of Prince Alexander Nevsky have already sounded as a formidable warning to enemies: “Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword!”(Nazarov O.“Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword!” // Website-newspaper “Local Demand”, 04/16/2013)

And no matter what extremes some politicians go to when they say that the confrontation between the West and Russia could go into the stage of a “hot” war, we answer: Russia is not going to fight with anyone. But no one should doubt our strength and determination. As Alexander Nevsky once said: “Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword.”(Newspaper “Zavtra”, No. 37 (773) dated September 10, 2008)

Reality

The phrase that the director and screenwriter put into the mouth of Nikolai Cherkasov is a slightly modified version of a quote from the Bible, apparently from the Gospel of Matthew (26:52): “And behold, one of those who were with Jesus, stretched out his hand, drew a sword and, striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

A statement with a similar meaning is found in “Revelation of John the Theologian” 13:10): “Whoever leads into captivity will himself go into captivity; whoever kills with the sword must himself be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints.”

It is curious that a similar formula existed in the ancient world, in particular, in Ancient Rome in the form of the phrase “Whoever fights with the sword dies by the sword” (Qui gladio ferit, gladio perit).

In fact, the sources do not report whether the Novgorod prince uttered such a phrase. There is no mention of this in the texts telling about the life and deeds of Alexander Nevsky (including the First Sofia Chronicle and the Pskov Second Chronicle).

According to the researcher of medieval Rus' I.N. Danilevsky, Alexander Nevsky is one of the most sacralized characters in Russian history. His image as a defender of Orthodoxy, a fighter for the independence of Rus', began to take shape in the 18th century, the researcher claims, and had a strong ideological platform: the place he chose for the construction of the new capital was located almost in the same place where the Battle of the Neva took place in 1240. Russia's claims to access to the Baltic were associated with the prince's victory on the Neva. Even the day of memory of Alexander Nevsky (August 30) was not chosen by chance: on this day Russia concluded the Treaty of Nystadt with Sweden.

Subsequently, the image of Alexander as the defender of the Russian land began to be increasingly popularized: in 1725, Catherine I established the highest military award - the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky; In 1753, Elizabeth ordered Alexander’s relics to be placed in a silver shrine. Then they began to hold a special religious procession every year from the St. Petersburg Kazan Cathedral to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Finally, at the beginning of the 20th century, one of the Moscow streets was named after Alexander Nevsky, notes I.N. Danilevsky.

Eisenstein's film gave new life to the image of Alexander as an outstanding defender of Rus'. The film was released on the wide screen in 1941, when the Great Patriotic War began. Its authors were awarded the Stalin Prize. The film turned out to be so uplifting that in 1942 the Order of Alexander Nevsky was established, decorated with a portrait of the leading actor, Nikolai Cherkasov - and this despite the fact that just a few years earlier, professional historians called the script of the film “a mockery of history.”

The influence of the film on public consciousness turned out to be so strong that both the screen image of the main character and the whole complex of accompanying myths - including the key role of the Battle of the Ice in the fight against crusader expansion, and the fact that Alexander Nevsky symbolically ended it with a twisted biblical quote about the sword - have firmly entered the public consciousness, become entrenched in historical memory, and appear not only in the reasoning of ordinary people when referring to “old times,” but also in the works of professional historians and in educational materials.

Bibliography: