Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Radical Reformation History  /  Lecture 13: The Birth of the Hutterites (Part 1)  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 6
The dispute at Nicholsburg wasn’t only doctrinal—it was about daily survival under Ottoman threat, mandated weapon-carrying, and the meaning of “two kingdoms”; how would early Christians have heard “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” in a context where government demanded readiness, and what does that imply for Christian participation in modern state violence?
Another way to ask: If the government required Christians to carry weapons because of war threats, how would they hear “those who live by the sword die by the sword”? What does that mean for Christians supporting or taking part in state violence today?

Direct Answer In Taylor’s telling, “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” would land as both a warning against trusting state violence and a vivid irony: Hübmeyer defended the sword under pressure, then was imprisoned and executed by the same coercive system.

Support from Transcript:

  • Taylor sets the context: Ottoman expansion threatened Austria; Vienna was besieged in 1529, so rulers demanded citizens be ready.
  • Because of “all these threats,” Ferdinand required people to “walk around with swords all the time,” making weapon-carrying a survival expectation.
  • Hübmeyer “began to defend the sword” and argued for balancing “state and… church,” writing a book “on the sword… against the Schleithaim Confession.”
  • Taylor remarks after Hübmeyer signed the sword treatise, “four weeks after that… he was in prison. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” applying Jesus’ principle as a moral reversal.
  • The broader “two kingdoms” theme appears later through Rittermann: governments are “under the law,” believers “under grace,” implying distinct ways of governing.
Discussion Follow-ups When fear rises (war, terrorism), what arguments tempt Christians to blend church ethics with state necessity? How do we discern limits without pretending threats aren’t real?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next