"He who is not with us is against us!" - Who said? History of the origin of expression

One of the most famous winged phrases that has avoided turning into a quote and has become literally a slogan, in fact has an ancient history. At rallies and in all sorts of rhetorical debates you can hear a fiery appeal: "Who is not with us, that is against us!", And we are so used to hearing this phrase that we regard it literally as folk art. However, it has nothing to do with proverbs and sayings. The history of this expression is more respectable and in a sense refined.

Biblical origin of the phrase

People who have an inquisitive mind can be interested in who said this phrase and why it is so widely dispersed in the world. The semantic analogues of this expression are in many languages, so we can talk about world popularity. Initially, this statement sounded differently, and although both variants - both basic and interpreted - reached us, "this one who is not with us is against us" is used more. The author only had in mind only himself, not spreading the meaning of what was said to a certain community.

Read the original version in Matthew chapter 12 verse 30. Jesus said: "He that is not with me is against me; And he that does not gather with me, lavishes. " Does this mean that he meant that all people who instantly disbelieve are his enemies?

Explanations from the author of the catch phrase

Of course, it is impossible to interview Jesus and clarify what exactly he meant. Usually the phrase "who is not with us is against us" is used in the sense of "staying out of the party will not work, neutrality does not exist, you think that you are neutral, but you are already our enemies." Nevertheless, if you carefully study that biblical story, to which the phrase pronounced by Jesus refers, you can also find his words addressed to the disciples: "Do not forbid him, who is not against you, that is for you." How can you interpret this duality, because it seems that the author of the expression is clearly contradictory to himself?

Perhaps Jesus meant strict specifics and really believed that the attitude to God and the attitude towards his disciples are different things, but to God many roads lead. Consequently, the original meaning of the expression was not as radical as after a more modern interpretation.

The use of the Bible in propaganda rhetoric

Why does this phrase have such an influence, it's not for nothing that many radical currents with such a hunt quote the phrase "who is not with us, is against us"? The Bible by default is considered an authoritative source of truth, so historically the European mindset. The irrepressible authority, to which the orator addresses in his speech, gives weight to his arguments.

After the triumphant procession of Christianity in Europe, the Bible was used as a source of justification for almost anything. Faith is in fact a powerful weapon, and it was very difficult to find people who dared to argue with words from a book inspired by God himself. However, this does not mean that the speaker himself must be a believer.

Vladimir Lenin or Max Stirner?

Most often this expression is attributed to Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as Lenin - the ideological leader of the October Revolution, which occurred in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the last century. The addressee was a party of Social Democrats who did not support the idea of a revolutionary seizure of power. Not surprisingly, the phrase was quoted and literally crammed by heart. Why is the phrase "who is not with us, is against us" in Latin sounds much more impressive? Qui non est nobiscum, adversus nos est ...

Perhaps, Lenin devoted much time to studying the works of the philosopher and anarchist Max Stirner. It is he who is credited with the authorship of this interpretation of the biblical passage. It remains to find out who said this first, but everything is very simple: Stirner died in 1856, and Lenin was born only in 1870.

Spontaneous propagation of expression

A harsh and capacious phrase, clearly spelling out the accents and forcing listeners to take the "right" side. Perhaps this was enough to turn the expression "who is not with us, that is against us" into a real slogan of the Bolsheviks. The slogans were well established on the fertile soil of the mass illiteracy of the proletariat, but they preferred not to spread the biblical origin of the expression. Although, most likely, they simply did not know the Bible in such detail to draw any parallels.

The temptation to use a successful expression, backed up by a rich history, wakes up occasionally from different speakers, but it sounds quite radical. It is not surprising that nowadays the phrase is regarded as aggressive and irreconcilable.

Relevance of the application of the phrase with a different emotional coloring

How does a person who, in the heat of a heartfelt speech, throw the phrase "who is not with us, is against us"? Now this expression can only hopelessly spoil the impression, and instead of allies, which the politician expects to receive in such a manner, he will receive a flurry of criticism.

Modern European society tries to adhere to the policy of tolerance, giving people a fairly wide range of rights and freedoms. So such a sharp contrast of the unequivocal Good to the indisputable Evil provokes at best a sarcastic reaction. Nevertheless, we have to admit that radical statements find their fans, and then the political situation begins to get worse.

Often in conversation, this phrase is mentioned with distinct mocking intonations - when someone starts too ardent to defend their case, opposing different groups of people and expressing value judgments. Indeed, a very heated speaker understands that he is kinking a stick and becomes like Lenin, broadcasting from an armored car about the need for a world revolution, as the tension subsides. Of course, this applies only to adequate people who are able to correctly assess the mood of the audience and correct the direction of statements.

Now the speech, adorned with such radical slogans, is unlikely to be taken seriously, so speechwriters try to make up balanced texts in which erroneous or ambiguous interpretations are not allowed and (if possible) there is no radical rhetoric and categorical proclamations.