The rector of the temple, Archpriest Vasily Gonchar, told our correspondent about the temple icons:
History of the icon of John the Baptist very unusual. At the very beginning of the life of the temple, it was brought by a woman from a family in which the icon was passed down by inheritance. This icon was from one of the destroyed Kamchatka churches; it was badly damaged: it was burnt, and the face could not be distinguished. We then imagined that this was an icon of the Savior, and we placed it in the place appropriate for such an icon. But from the moment it appeared in the temple, it began to be updated, and we now see that the icon depicts John the Baptist. And she was placed above the confessional, because the Forerunner called everyone to repentance. And the fact that the icon of John the Baptist has been renewed over the years is a small miracle, and the parishioners of the temple are very sensitive to this.
IconOur Lady of Port Arthur:
Exactly two months before the start of the Russo-Japanese War, on December 11, 1903, the old sailor Fedor, a participant in the defense of Sevastopol, came to the Kiev Pechersk Lavra to speak. He prayed earnestly for the Russian fleet in Port Arthur. Once in a dream he had a vision: the Most Holy Theotokos standing with her back to the bay of the sea. The Mother of God calmed the fear-stricken sailor and told him that a war would soon begin, in which Russia would face great trials and losses. The Lady of Heaven ordered to make an image that accurately depicts the vision and send the icon to the Port Arthur Church, promising protection and victory to the Russian army
Photo: Authentic icon of the Mother of God of Port Arthur in Kamchatka
When the news came about the start of the war, the monks and pilgrims of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, who knew about the sailor’s vision, collected a coin (they did not accept more than one person) for materials for making the icon. The craftsmen did not charge anything for the work. On the image it was written in enamel script: “As a blessing and a sign of triumph to the Christ-loving army of Far Russia from the holy monasteries of Kyiv and 10,000 pilgrims and friends.”
In our church we have an icon of the Mother of God “Port Arthur” that is dear to my heart; a copy of it was made from an original icon, which today is in one of the churches in Vladivostok. When the religious procession along the maritime borders of the Russian state was conceived, it was initially proposed that it be carried out with a genuine icon. At that time, the Archbishop of Vladivostok and Primorsky Benjamin agreed to hand over the Port Arthur Icon of the Mother of God for the duration of the northern transition, but after its completion the icon had to be returned to Vladivostok.
We were not happy with this option, because we wanted the icon to remain in our diocese after such a long religious procession. We also planned to have our Avachinskaya Bay, three brothers and volcanoes depicted on the icon. But without the blessing of the Patriarch it is not permissible to do such things, so we turned to the ever-memorable Patriarch Alexy and received permission: “It is blessed without changing the appearance of the Mother of God,” that is, we were only allowed to change the appearance of the bay. Icon painting workshops did not agree to paint it: the icon was unusual, and it had to be painted in a short time. For the icon painters I had to prepare a whole package of documents and photographs of hills, volcanoes, and bays. It was completed a week before the start of the procession.
Photo: Icon of the Mother of God of Port Arthur of the Church of St. blgv. book Alexander Nevsky
Our icon of the Mother of God “Port Arthur” traveled three oceans and ten seas, 200 thousand 500 nautical miles or 20.0 thousand kilometers, crossed the Sea of Okhotsk, visited Magadan and, completing the religious procession, returned with warships to Kamchatka. Now she resides in our temple.
Icon of St. blgv. Prince Alexander Nevsky: It was given to us, but it was large in size and in our small church we had no place to place it, so we donated it to the military church of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Rybachy. At that time, we already had a temple icon in which Prince Alexander Nevsky is depicted with a sword in his hands. It was he who said: “Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword.”
Photo by Svetlana Ligostaeva. Temple icon of St. vlgv. book Alexander Nevsky
But on the icon, the weapon is more of a symbol. But when we talk about protecting the Fatherland, when it is in danger, then the ministers of the church also take up the sword. St. Sergius of Radonezh, having blessed Prince Dimitri, subsequently gave Donskoy to the Russian army two schemamonks - Alexander Peresvet (former boyar of Bryansk) and Andrei Oslyabya (former boyar of Lyubetsky). Both of them were experienced warriors before taking monasticism and died on the Kulikovo field. The duel between Peresvet and Chelebey was more of a spiritual battle than a physical one.
Photo: Duel between Peresvet and Chelebey
“...In the understanding of the Russian people, the Kulikovo field was a “place of judgment”, where two armies gathered not just to measure their strength, but where the Judgment of God’s measure and truth over man was to take place, where the question was decided: should there be a Russian Land and a Russian state?”
And Alexander Nevsky?! Being a famous warrior, he goes and bows to Batu Khan, he chooses between the wild Mongols and the Latin West. He goes into physical captivity among wild tribes, saving the Russian people from spiritual captivity.
INSERT: “The historical task facing Alexander Nevsky was twofold: to protect the borders of Rus' from the attacks of the Latin West and to strengthen national identity within the borders.
The salvation of the Orthodox faith was the main stone of the political system of Alexander Nevsky. For him, Orthodoxy was not in words, but in deeds - “the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
With his deep and brilliant hereditary historical instinct, Prince Alexander understood that in his historical era the main danger to Orthodoxy and the uniqueness of Russian culture came from the West, and not from the East, from Latinism, and not from Mongolism. Mongolism brought slavery to the body, but not to the soul. Latinity threatened to distort the very soul. Latinism was a militant religious system that sought to subjugate and remake the Orthodox faith of the Russian people according to its own model.
Mongolism was not a religious system at all, but only a cultural and political one. It carried with it civil-political laws (Chinggis Yasa), and not religious-ecclesiastical ones. The main principle of the Great Mongol Power was precisely broad religious tolerance, or even more - patronage of all religions
The two feats of Alexander Nevsky - the feat of warfare in the West and the feat of humility in the East - had one goal: the preservation of Orthodoxy as the moral and political force of the Russian people.
This goal was achieved: the growth of the Russian Orthodox kingdom took place on the soil prepared by Prince Alexander. The tribe of Alexander Nevsky built the Moscow state.”
So the image with weapons on the icons of the Holy defenders of the Fatherland and the Russian state from adversaries is a tribute to their services to the Russian people and Holy Russia.
Time of entry: Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 21:04 in the section. You can track comments on this post via the feed. You can, or send from your website.
“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 Peipus 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 dying sigh of the blacksmith-warrior, memorable to everyone: “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 would be a good idea for such dreamers to be reminded of 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, placed 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 painted crosses on their tank towers, 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.
On April 5, 1242, a battle took place, rightfully inscribed in the tablets of brilliant Russian military victories, and is currently known as the Battle of the Ice.
In the battle on the ice of Lake Peipus, the Russian squad led by Prince Alexander Nevsky defeated the army of the knights of the Teutonic Order.
In honor of this event, we suggest refreshing your memory of the most famous statements of Alexander Nevsky.
Grand Duke of Vladimir and Kiev, Prince of Novgorod Alexander Yaroslavich was born on May 13, 1221. The victory he won on July 15, 1240 on the banks of the Neva over a detachment commanded by the future ruler of Sweden, Earl Birger, brought universal glory to the young prince. It was for this victory that the prince began to be called Nevsky. On April 5, 1242, with the defeat of the knights of the Teutonic Order on the ice of Lake Peipus, the prince wrote his name in history as a commander who secured the western borders of Rus'. Died November 14, 1263. He was buried in the Vladimir Monastery of the Nativity of the Virgin. He was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1547. In 1942, the Soviet government established the Order of Alexander Nevsky.
In many military units of Russia we will find on posters the phrase “Whoever enters us with a sword will die by the sword!” And the signature under it: “Alexander Nevsky.” In this case, we are dealing with a cultural and historical curiosity. And here's why. Some statements of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, one of those great princes of Rus' who most strongly influenced its history, have reached us. However, it seems that he did not say these exact words, otherwise they would have been preserved in the memory of those from whose words the chroniclers then, hot on the heels, recorded the facts of the biography of Alexander Nevsky.
Why do we still present them in the book “Speeches that Changed Russia”? The answer to this question is given by the feature film “Alexander Nevsky”, shot by director Sergei Eisenstein in 1938 under the patronage of Stalin, who made his own adjustments both to the script and to the final editing of the film. The film was supposed to become not only an artistic, but also an ideological phenomenon. The threat of a big war was then real, and this threat came from Germany. The historical parallels with the film were clear to the viewer.
When the film was released in 1938, it was a tremendous success, comparable only to the success of Chapaev. Sergei Eisenstein received the Stalin Prize and the degree of Doctor of Art History without defending a dissertation. However, soon after the release of the film, it was withdrawn from distribution for reasons of political correctness in relation to Germany, with which the USSR was trying to establish strong ties during this period. In 1939, the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, and the film was banned from showing by special order and put on a shelf so as not to lose Hitler’s favor and not to create a negative image of the German conqueror in the minds of Soviet citizens.
However, as we know, the non-aggression pact was treacherously violated by the Nazis in 1941, and keeping the film on the shelf no longer made any sense. After the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, “Alexander Nevsky” returned to the screens with even more resounding success. And even more than that, 1942 marked the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Lake Peipsi. There was an impression that the film was specially made for this date, and even with propaganda overtones. Indeed, in the film, the knights of the Teutonic Order (Germans) are presented as a powerful, well-organized force that turns into nothing when faced with the heroism and resourcefulness of the Russian people. Pointing to this, Stalin’s words were printed on the film posters: “Let the courageous image of our great ancestors inspire you in this war.”
The film ends with the complete victory of Russian troops over the invaders. In the final scenes, the Novgorod people decide their fate as follows: ordinary warriors are released, knights are left to receive a ransom, and the leaders of the troops are executed. Actor Nikolai Cherkasov, who plays Alexander Nevsky, asks the departing bollards to tell everyone else: “Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword!” This is where the Russian land stood and will stand!” At that moment, these words sounded very relevant: it seemed as if the disgraced and defeated Germans of the thirteenth century had to convey these words to the Germans of the twentieth. But, apparently, neither one nor the other heard these words. But they were accepted with all their souls, understood and inspired by the Russian people of the twentieth century, whose lot it fell to repel the powerful, well-organized force of fascism and turn it into nothingness.
Historical parallels were not an accident, as evidenced, in particular, by the words of the film’s creator, Sergei Eisenstein: “The year was 1938. “Patriotism is our theme” stood steadily before me and the entire creative team during filming, during dubbing, and during editing. Reading simultaneously the chronicles of the 13th century and the newspapers of today, you lose the sense of the difference in time, for the bloody horror that the knightly orders of conquerors sowed in the 13th century is almost no different from what is happening now in some countries of the world.”
Let us now return to the personality of Alexander Nevsky. Oddly enough, not much is known about him. “The Life of Alexander Nevsky,” created in the early 80s of the 13th century, is small in size, and it is no coincidence that Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin, the author of “The History of the Russian State,” inserts large excerpts from the reports of Plano Carpini and Willem into the presentation dedicated to Alexander Nevsky van Rubruck about their trips to the Horde in order to balance the volumes of the various chapters of their historical work. But, as they say, it is what it is.
Apparently, the explanation for this lies in the fact that the activities of Alexander Nevsky were devoted mainly to his relationships with the restless Novgorodians, with their formidable western neighbors - the Germans and Swedes - and with the Horde, which caused great trouble for the prince. And the interests of the chroniclers, traditionally, lay in the plane of confrontation between the Kyiv and Vladimir princes, although, frankly speaking, in historical terms these endless intrigues no longer had much significance. It is not for nothing that Andrei Bogolyubsky, remembering the sad fate of his father, Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, poisoned by the Kyiv boyars, renounced his claims to the Kiev grand princely table.
There are not many of us, but the enemy is strong; but God is not in power, but in truth: go with your prince!
However, even the little that we know about Alexander Nevsky arouses great interest in him as a politician and military leader. Here are two opinions expressed by people who communicated with the prince. The first belongs to the master of the Livonian Order Andrei Velven, who, after conversations with Alexander, noted: “I went through many countries and saw many peoples, but I did not meet such a king among kings, nor a prince among princes.” The second was expressed by Khan Batu after his meeting with Alexander Nevsky: “They told me the truth that there is no prince like him.”
Of course, reading “The Life of Alexander Nevsky”, you notice that its author, following the dictates of his time, sets out the speeches and deeds of his hero through the prism of a Christian, or rather Orthodox attitude towards the world and people, and, of course, Alexander himself thought and spoke in that same key. An example of this is the words of Alexander Nevsky, which he said to his soldiers before the Battle of Neva: “There are not many of us, but the enemy is strong; but God is not in power, but in truth: go with your prince!”
The curiosity related to the words attributed to Alexander Nevsky in atheistic Soviet times, “Whoever enters us with a sword will die by the sword!” is also due to the fact that this statement is very reminiscent of one verse from the biblical “Revelation of John the Theologian”: “Who leads into captivity, he himself will go into captivity; whoever kills with the sword must himself be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints” (Rev. 13:10).
In conclusion, it is necessary to mention the appeal to Alexander noted by the chronicler from Pope Innocent IV, who sent two legates, Cardinals Galda and Gemont, to the prince with a proposal to convert to the Catholic faith. In his response letter, Alexander Nevsky wrote the words below, which have not lost their relevance today.
Response of Prince Alexander Nevsky to the papal legates, 1251
From Adam to the flood, from the flood to the division of nations, from the confusion of nations to Abraham, from Abraham to the passage of Israel through the Red Sea, from the exodus of the children of Israel to the death of King David, from the beginning of the reign of Solomon to Augustus the king, from the power of Augustus to the birth of Christ. , from the birth of Christ to the suffering and resurrection of the Lord, from His resurrection to his ascension into heaven, from his ascension into heaven to the reign of Constantine, from the beginning of the reign of Constantine to the first Council, from the first Council to the seventh - we know all this well, and from your teachings are not acceptable.
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 for 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 that 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.
Alexander Nevsky, who didn’t say anything like that
Not anyone's. Of the famous historical figures, no one uttered the words “Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword.”The phrase, which became a catchphrase, was invented by the Soviet writer P. A. Pavlenko (July 11, 1899 - July 16, 1951). On December 1, 1938, the film “Alexander Nevsky” was released on the movie screens of the Soviet Union, the script for which was written by Pavlenko. In it, the main character pronounces this text. However, in historical chronicles there is no mention of such a speech by Nevsky. She became famous thanks to the media. So to speak, “the magical power of art”
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 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 perish 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”)
Loading...