How do pacifist Christians reconcile pacifism with with Jesus's commendation of the Roman centurion?

[jmt356]

(Quote removed as it is part of a deleted post. Obadiah)
No one disputes that Jesus did not want the sword used for the purpose of defending Him at Gethsemane. The question is whether there is a different time and place for the sword, or whether the sword is banned altogether. If the sword were banned altogether, then Jesus would have likely told Peter to discard it, or He would have banned Peter from carrying a sword to begin with. But the fact is that Jesus told Peter to put his sword “in its place” (Mat 26:52), which Chessman interprets to mean that there is a time and a place for the sword. The question is whether there is an adequate pacifist response to this interpretation.

“Translators translate the text as they understand it. It would follow then that one who allows hte use of violence to the Christian might see a sword in this passage. However, another might see a knife in this passage. The "machaira" is a large knife or a small sword. Jesus was getting ready to send the apostles out into the world where they would need to provide for themselves. They would need to prepare food and kill animals to eat so have a "machaira" doesn't automatically indicate a violent usage.”
This is interesting. Strong assigns G3162 to μάχαιρα (machaira, pronounced mä'-khī-rä), which is used in the original Greek. The Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3162&t=NASB&bn=44) defines the term as follows:
“I. a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
“II. a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
“A. curved sword, for a cutting stroke
“B. a straight sword, for thrusting.”

Definition II suggests that a machaira is a small sword, which supports the just war theorist interpretation, since Peter was not scolded for carrying around a weapon; Definition I suggests that a machaira means a large knife, which supports the pacifist position, since Peter was only carrying around a tool that is necessary to fend for oneself in the world.

Every Bible translation that I have consulted (ASV, BBE, Darby, ESV, FDB, FLS, ISV, KJV, LBLA, MKJV, NKJV, RSV, SRV, SSE, SVD) translates the term as “sword” (in the case of French, “épée”; Spanish, “espada”; Arabic, سيف), which supports the just war theory. There is a remote possibility that all of these translations got it wrong and Peter was merely carrying around a large knife for survival in the wilderness, but it is unlikely that every major translation got it wrong.

 

[gr8grace3]

BUTCH 5 WROTE:
“I'm not sure how you see a time and place for violence when Jesus told Peter to put away his knife/sword. That Jesus told him to put it away when he used it for violence seems to suggest He didn't want it used for that purpose.”
No one disputes that Jesus did not want the sword used for the purpose of defending Him at Gethsemane. The question is whether there is a different time and place for the sword, or whether the sword is banned altogether. If the sword were banned altogether, then Jesus would have likely told Peter to discard it, or He would have banned Peter from carrying a sword to begin with. But the fact is that Jesus told Peter to put his sword “in its place” (Mat 26:52), which Chessman interprets to mean that there is a time and a place for the sword. The question is whether there is an adequate pacifist response to this interpretation.

“Translators translate the text as they understand it. It would follow then that one who allows hte use of violence to the Christian might see a sword in this passage. However, another might see a knife in this passage. The "machaira" is a large knife or a small sword. Jesus was getting ready to send the apostles out into the world where they would need to provide for themselves. They would need to prepare food and kill animals to eat so have a "machaira" doesn't automatically indicate a violent usage.”
This is interesting. Strong assigns G3162 to μάχαιρα (machaira, pronounced mä'-khī-rä), which is used in the original Greek. The Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3162&t=NASB&bn=44) defines the term as follows:
“I. a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
“II. a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
“A. curved sword, for a cutting stroke
“B. a straight sword, for thrusting.”

Definition II suggests that a machaira is a small sword, which supports the just war theorist interpretation, since Peter was not scolded for carrying around a weapon; Definition I suggests that a machaira means a large knife, which supports the pacifist position, since Peter was only carrying around a tool that is necessary to fend for oneself in the world.

Every Bible translation that I have consulted (ASV, BBE, Darby, ESV, FDB, FLS, ISV, KJV, LBLA, MKJV, NKJV, RSV, SRV, SSE, SVD) translates the term as “sword” (in the case of French, “épée”; Spanish, “espada”; Arabic, سيف), which supports the just war theory. There is a remote possibility that all of these translations got it wrong and Peter was merely carrying around a large knife for survival in the wilderness, but it is unlikely that every major translation got it wrong.

New American Standard Bible
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

This is what the pacifists have changed this verse into:

New American Standard Bible
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall be allowed to rob you,rape your wife,kill your kids,behead your brothers and sisters in Christ, take your nation.

In their very Pet verse they have Jesus Christ advocating capitol punishment and our defense against people who take up the sword.

'Take up' the sword is an aggressive or assertive manner.....criminal.

....for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

It is not, "For all those who take up the sword shall be allowed to steal from you,kill you,fill in the blank.'

Jesus Christ said,"They shall PERISH by the sword."

 

[chessman]

Jesus Christ said,"They shall PERISH by the sword."

And the Holy Spirit told Paul to tell us in Rom 13 that civil authorities (like police/military/courts) are God's instrument to make that happen.
(A&T Guidelines, in particular "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." Vague references to entire chapters do not fulfill this requirement. Obadiah.)

Also, if Peter simply carried around a 'small knife' used to prepare food (because it was supposedly un-ethical to protect yourself from robbers/thieves/murderers, etc. as Jesus' disciple) what in the world is Peter doing pulling it out to use on a Sanhedrin Temple guard in the first place?

 

[WIP]

50 Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him.
51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
52 But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Whenever I hear these verses quoted with regard to this topic it seems those quoting it keep leaving off the rest of the story and thereby take it out of context.

53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”
55 In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, “Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me.
56 But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”

 

[Butch5]

No one disputes that Jesus did not want the sword used for the purpose of defending Him at Gethsemane. The question is whether there is a different time and place for the sword, or whether the sword is banned altogether. If the sword were banned altogether, then Jesus would have likely told Peter to discard it, or He would have banned Peter from carrying a sword to begin with. But the fact is that Jesus told Peter to put his sword “in its place” (Mat 26:52), which Chessman interprets to mean that there is a time and a place for the sword. The question is whether there is an adequate pacifist response to this interpretation.


You said, “No one disputes that Jesus did not want the sword used for the purpose of defending Him at Gethsemane.” If that is the case then I have to ask why those who advocate the use of the sword use this passage as evidence for their position.


Why would Jesus tell the disciples to get rid of their knives when He just told them to get some?

This is interesting. Strong assigns G3162 to μάχαιρα (machaira, pronounced mä'-khī-rä), which is used in the original Greek. The Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3162&t=NASB&bn=44) defines the term as follows:
“I. a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
“II. a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
“A. curved sword, for a cutting stroke
“B. a straight sword, for thrusting.”

Definition II suggests that a machaira is a small sword, which supports the just war theorist interpretation, since Peter was not scolded for carrying around a weapon; Definition I suggests that a machaira means a large knife, which supports the pacifist position, since Peter was only carrying around a tool that is necessary to fend for oneself in the world.

Every Bible translation that I have consulted (ASV, BBE, Darby, ESV, FDB, FLS, ISV, KJV, LBLA, MKJV, NKJV, RSV, SRV, SSE, SVD) translates the term as “sword” (in the case of French, “épée”; Spanish, “espada”; Arabic, سيف), which supports the just war theory. There is a remote possibility that all of these translations got it wrong and Peter was merely carrying around a large knife for survival in the wilderness, but it is unlikely that every major translation got it wrong.

Consider this, what is the position of the majority of Christians regarding the use of violence? If one believes that it is OK for a Christian to use violence then why wouldn’t they read machaira as a sword. One thing that we need to keep in mind is that in order to translate something one must understand what it says. If one understands that the use of violence is OK for the Christian then their understanding of certain passages will be different than if they didn’t it was OK.


You see, the word is translated as the translator thinks it should be. Whether it is considered a knife or a sword in English is determined by the translator, however, the Greek readers to which the Scriptures were written only saw one word, “Machaira.” I think from the uses we see in Scripture it’s pretty certain that this device is not some four foot long sword used to lop people’s heads off. One the other hand one can use a simple pocketknife to kill if they choose to. So, I don’t think the use of this device in any validates the argument that it is ok to kill.

 

[Butch5]

(Post removed per A&T Guidelines: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." Obadiah)

 

[jmt356]

BUTCH5 WROTE:
“You said, “No one disputes that Jesus did not want the sword used for the purpose of defending Him at Gethsemane.” If that is the case then I have to ask why those who advocate the use of the sword use this passage as evidence for their position.”

Just war theorists do not use Matthew 26:51 (“one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear”) to justify the use of violence. No just war theorist that I am aware of believes that the use of force to defend Jesus was God’s will at Gethsemane. Rather, they believe, as Jesus clearly spoke, that Jesus had to be delivered to the Sanhedrin and crucified so that “the Scriptures be fulfilled” (Mat 26:54).

However, one just war theorist on this forum suggested that there is a time and place for Christians to use violence, though the Gethsemane arrest scene was not one of them. The basis for this argument is Mathew 26:52, where Jesus told Peter to “Put your machaira (sword/knife) in its place,” rather than to discard his sword.

The validity of this argument depends on whether machaira more accurately translates as sword or knife within this context. I wrote earlier that “Every Bible translation that I have consulted (ASV, BBE, Darby, ESV, FDB, FLS, ISV, KJV, LBLA, MKJV, NKJV, RSV, SRV, SSE, SVD) translates the term as “sword” (in the case of French, “épée”; Spanish, “espada”; Arabic, سيف), which supports the just war theory.”

Butch5’s response is as follows:
“Consider this, what is the position of the majority of Christians regarding the use of violence? If one believes that it is OK for a Christian to use violence then why wouldn’t they read machaira as a sword. One thing that we need to keep in mind is that in order to translate something one must understand what it says. If one understands that the use of violence is OK for the Christian then their understanding of certain passages will be different than if they didn’t it was OK. You see, the word is translated as the translator thinks it should be.”

Basically, Butch5’s response is that the 15 translations I consulted across 5 languages erred in the translation of machaira. This is because all of these translators adopted a mistaken understanding of the use of force.

I find it incredible that every major Bible translation would mis-translate a term. Moreover, I disagree that such a mis-translation is based on mistaken doctrine. While perhaps most Christians subscribe to just war theory, I would say that at least one 25-30%, including the Orthodox and many Protestants, subscribe to pacifism. So one cannot say that mistranslations were due to the fact that most or all Christians subscribed to just war theory and thus translated the text to fit their doctrine.

Butch5 further responded:
“I think from the uses we see in Scripture it’s pretty certain that this device is not some four foot long sword used to lop people’s heads off. One the other hand one can use a simple pocketknife to kill if they choose to. So, I don’t think the use of this device in any validates the argument that it is ok to kill.”

I believe this is an erroneous statement. There are 29 instances in which the Greek machaira appears in the New Testament. About half of them are instances in which the translation of “sword” is unequivocal because of the surrounding verses, which imply the use of machaira as an instrument of violent force. In the other half, one could argue that machaira properly translates as “knife,” though “sword” is at least as if not more appropriate. Consider the following, in which the meaning is unequivocally “sword”:
- Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
- Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
- Mat 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
- Mar 14:43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
- Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the until the times of the be fulfilled.
- Luk 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
- Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
- Act 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
- Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
- Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
- Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.[1]
- Heb 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
- Heb 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
- Rev 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.
- Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

[1] That machaira here properly translates as “sword” is made clear by the surrounding verses, which include other war symbols, such as shields and helmets.

 

[JohnD]

There is nothing pacifist about Jesus Christ. Nothing.
If you realize who and what he is (the lone Creator of all things in the beginning become a man); and that he was not pacifist but rather submitted entirely to the authority of the Father (to insure the legitimacy of his humanity for our benefit as our kinsman redeemer**)... then you realize how much restraint Jesus exercised daily, moment by moment, the power and privilege of the Creator of the universe and eternity. Every breath he drew was activist!

** otherwise even God would not qualify as our kinsman redeemer which is also why he did not do things his deity would have disqualified him for since humans cannot do those things

 

[Butch5]

jmt356---Just war theorists do not use Matthew 26:51(“one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear”) to justify the use of violence. No just war theorist that I am aware of believes that the use of force to defend Jesus was God’s will at Gethsemane. Rather, they believe, as Jesus clearly spoke, that Jesus had to be delivered to the Sanhedrin and crucified so that “the Scriptures be fulfilled” (Mat 26:54).

However, one just war theorist on this forum suggested that there is a time and place for Christians to use violence, though the Gethsemane arrest scene was not one of them. The basis for this argument is Mathew 26:52, where Jesus told Peter to “Put yourmachaira (sword/knife) in its place,” rather than to discard his sword.

The validity of this argument depends on whethermachairamore accurately translates as sword or knife within this context. I wrote earlier that “Every Bible translation that I have consulted (ASV, BBE, Darby, ESV, FDB, FLS, ISV, KJV, LBLA, MKJV, NKJV, RSV, SRV, SSE, SVD) translates the term as “sword” (in the case of French, “épée”; Spanish, “espada”; Arabic, سيف), which supports the just war theory.”

I don’t think this argument rests solely on the definition of “machaira.” While the definition plays into it there are other reasons to buy a sword. If someone bought a gun today does that automatically mean they intend to use it on someone? Do we automatically assume because someone bought a gun that they intend to shoot someone? I don’t think so. So why would we assume that because someone buys a “machaira,” whether a sword or knife, that they intend to kill someone? There are people today who buy swords with no intent to use it on a person.

As far as the translations translating “machaira” as sword, that doesn’t surprise me. Look at the predominant belief on this issue in Christianity today. In order to translate a document one must understand what that document says. Theologians translate the Scriptures based on their understanding of them. It’s only logical that if a translator thinks it’s ok for Christians to use violence he would see no problem translating “machaira” as sword. However, a translator who believes that Christians are not to use violence might see a problem in translating “machira” as sword.

To find the truth we should look through the Scriptures to see how the word is used throughout the Scriptures. We should look at the passages in which it appears and ask what will the passage allow or what will it require as a definition of “machaira”. To get a proper definition of the word we should find the narrowest meaning that will still work with every passage in which the word appears.

I find it incredible that every major Bible translation would mis-translate a term. Moreover, I disagree that such a mis-translation is based on mistaken doctrine. While perhaps most Christians subscribe to just war theory, I would say that at least one 25-30%, including the Orthodox and many Protestants, subscribe to pacifism. So one cannot say that mistranslations were due to the fact that most or all Christians subscribed to just war theory and thus translated the text to fit their doctrine.

This argument is an appeal to authority and not valid. At one time most people believed that the world was flat, that didn’t, make it so. Just because 15 translations translate the word as sword doesn’t mean they are correct. Why would you find it incredible that 15 translations mistranslate a word? Look at the words “olam” and “aionion.” Most translations translate these words as forever, however, the Scriptures use these words of things that end.

KJV Leviticus 7:34 For the wave breast and the heave shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel. (Lev 7:34 KJV)

In this passage the word translated “for ever” is olam in the Hebrew text and aionion in the Greek text.

The KJV, ASV, BBE, CJB, Darby, NAS, NKJV, Douay Rheims, Webster’s, ERV,GNV, translate olam as everlasting or for ever, and there are others that translate it as permanent. However, the apostle Paul said that the Aaronic priesthood ended. Which is more likely, that these translations are wrong or that Paul is wrong?

I disagree with your estimate that 25-30% of Christians subscribe to pacifism.

There is another flaw in this argument. If “machaira” is correctly translated a sword, why don’t these translators always translate “machaira” the same way, as a sword? Why do they use different words to translate the same Greek word?

Here we have machaira translated Knife.

LXE Genesis 22:6And Abraam took the wood of the whole-burnt-offering, and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took into his hands both the fire and the <1> knife, and the two went together. {1)macairan, a short dagger used both for defence and sacrifice, etc.}

Here we have machaira translated dagger.

LXE Judges 3:21And it came to pass as he arose, that Aod stretched forth his left hand, and took thedaggeroff his right thigh, and plunged it into his belly; (Jdg 3:21 LXE)

What we need to remember is that they didn’t say, sword, they said, machaira. In English a sword and a knife are two different instruments, that’s one of the problems in translating. Sometimes there’s not an exact word in the other language and one must approximate.

Whatever the machaira was it seems obvious from Scripture that it had multiple uses. Therefore I don’t think anyone can say this was strictly an instrument of war. Since it had multiple uses there is no reason to expect Jesus to tell Peter to rid himself of it, since he’d need it. Jesus was about to send them out into the world.

 

[Butch5]

jmt356---I believe this is an erroneous statement. There are 29 instances in which the Greek machaira appears in the New Testament. About half of them are instances in which the translation of “sword” is unequivocal because of the surrounding verses, which imply the use ofmachaira as an instrument of violent force. In the other half, one could argue thatmachaira properly translates as “knife,” though “sword” is at least as if not more appropriate. Consider the following, in which the meaning is unequivocally “sword”:
-Mat 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but asword.
-Mat 26:47And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude withswords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
-Mat 26:55In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief withswords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
-Mar 14:43And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude withswords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
-Luk 21:24And they shall fall by the edge of thesword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the until the times of the be fulfilled.
-Luk 22:49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with thesword?
-Act 12:1Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.Act 12:2And he killed James the brother of John with thesword.
-Act 16:27And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out hissword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
-Rom 8:35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, orsword?
-Rom 13:4For he is the minister of to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not thesword in vain: for he is the minister of a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
-Eph 6:17And take the helmet of salvation, and thesword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.[1]
-Heb 11:34Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of thesword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
-Heb 11:37They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with thesword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
-Rev 13:10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with thesword must be killed with thesword.
-Rev 13:14And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by asword, and did live.
[1]Thatmachaira here properly translates as “sword” is made clear by the surrounding verses, which include other war symbols, such as shields and helmets.

That you agree that “machaira” is translated knife proves my point about translator bias. A “machaira” is a “machaira”. A sword and a knife are two different things. When 1stcentury Greeks heard the word “machaira” they had one instrument in mind. When a 21stcentury English speaker hears the word sword, he doesn’t think of a knife. When he hears the word knife, he doesn’t think of a sword. Therein lies the problem.

However, I don’t think this supports your argument. Of course a “machaira” could be used for violence, just like a pocket knife could be used for violence. A baseball bat can used for violence, however, that doesn’t mean a person who buys a baseball bat intends to use it for violence. Just because a knife can be used for violence doesn’t mean that everyone who has one intends to use if for that purpose.

LXE Judges 3:16 And Aod made himself a dagger of two edges, of a span long, and he girded it under his cloak upon his right thigh. (Jdg 3:16 LXE)

Here’s something to think about. The Jews were under Roman control, do you suppose that the Romans let everyone run around carrying weapons of war?

The bottom line in my opinion is not so much how "mahcaira" is translated but rather the intended use of the "machaira"

 

[dianegcook]

I believe as one stated, Jesus knew He was to be delivered up. He came here to be crucified on the cross for remission of sin.

The Soldiers prayer:
Psa,.144:1, 2
Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight..........
....

Thou shalt not kill, means, lie in wait, premeditated murder.
If Christians didn't defend themselves, we would probably be distinct.

Do you think Jesus will be a peaceful person when He comes back?
Wrath and vengeance!
In Luke 4:18-21 the Lord read this passage,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And He closed the book, sat down and said, This day is this scriptures fulfilled in your ears.

What was He reading?

Isa.61:2, 3
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek, He hath sent me to bind the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,/
This is where He closed the book in Luke.

2 dispensations

If He had kept on reading, Isa.61:2, it would say,
And the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn.

His day of vengeance is coming!
Rule with a rod of iron...

 

[john darling]

Hi all! Wow, so much to respond to!

First off, the centurion thing. Jesus was praising the Ceturion's faith, not his profession. The impressive thing about his faith is that he believed Jesus, to the point that he didn't need to see the healing in person.

This willingness to believe Jesus despite our natural inclination to "see it to believe it" is what Jesus was praising. In other words, we may not always understand God's reasoning, or even agree with his reasoning, but Jesus is looking for people who are willing to trust him despite those doubts. For example consider john 20:29 where Jesus tells Thomas, "blessed are those who believe and have not seen."

1. Turning the other cheek (Matt 5) is about not returning an insult with an insult. It has almost nothing to do with the use of force or a sword against the bad deeds of rape, murder, etc.

And yet, the text talks about being struck on the cheek; actual physical violence. I don't think it's helpful in our attempts to discern a reasonable interpretation to water down what was actually said. You say it has "almost" nothing to do with the use of force. Can you please elaborate on this "almost" part?

Also, I notice in these discussions people will talk about these terrible behaviors, (like rape murder etc). I think it's good to discuss them in terms of being realistically prepared for what a "turn the other cheek" stance could involve practically, but often they are discussed more in terms of being afraid. As bad as these things are, we shouldn't make decisions based on fear. This is part of "counting the cost".

I.e. The Inocent Dove will (and did) speak thru them that acted like sheep to their Shepherd. Again, this has nothing to do with prohibiting force agsinst bad force.

Doves are known for their passiveness. That's precisely why Jesus used the dove in this teaching. He deliberately contrasted the dove against an aggressive animal (i.e. the snake). In the same teaching he contrasted sheep vs wolves, precisely because he knows that we will be putting ourselves in danger by telling us not to fight back.

Sheep being thrown among wolves. I believe this imagery is clear and yet you are quite bold in saying this has "nothing" to do with being taken advantage of by a violent world. Sheep don't fight back against the wolf, at least not physically.

Compare this with Rom 8:36, where Paul references an OT quote about sheep being accounted for slaughter. The whole context of being likened to sheep is that we will face danger. We will be killed. Look again at what Jesus said about enemy loving from Matthew 5:44. Pray for them which spitefully use you. Bless those that curse you. Do good to those who hate you.

Of course, it's not practical for Jesus to sit there for days, years, decades listing each and every conceivable possible sceneario for every individual in every context on what is or is not okay concerning violence, so instead we get the spirit of what he was teaching; sheep to the slaughter.

If you want to allow room for using physical force to fight back, then you need to replace the sheep with some other animal imagery in order to maintain consistency. If you don't, the usage of sheep (in the context Jesus used it) becomes irrational.

Notice also, Jesus didn't say throw it away and never use his sword again. He said put it BACK into it's place. There is a time and a place for using the NT sword evidently. Just as there was a time/place for Jesus to go again to Jerusalam.

Regarding the sword thing, I don't think it matters whether it was a sword or a knife; it was being used as a weapon. I think the more significant issue is that there is only one reference in the NT to a disciple using a weapon in self defence. One.

Not only that, but the circumstances are bizarre. The account is worded in a confusing way. They apparently just happened to find two swords laying in the room. Jesus says, "it is enough". Later, Peter draws the weapon, uses it, then Jesus rebukes him, telling him to put the sword away. Why did he allow them to bring the swords but not to use them? Given the lack of any other supporting information on Christians using weapons, this whole example is a rather flimsy basis for supporting a self defense argument.

The towns folk weren't doing any of the bad deeds that God has sanctioned the use of force against. That doesn't mean there aren't some bad deeds that God has sanctioned the use of NT force against.

This sounds like another of those "if Jesus was silent on the issue that means it's okay to do as we want". Of course, Jesus was not silent on the use of physical violence. Chessman, can you clarify what you meant here?

None of these verses say or even imply: "that the use of force and violence is off limits for Christians".

Something weird seems to be happening in your reasoning, chessman. You reference 2 cor 10:3 as though it has nothing to do with carnal weapons, but the very next verse says exactly that; our weapons are not carnal.

Then you reference Eph 6:10 which says it is spiritual wickedness we wrestle against. It goes on to describe our weapons in this conflict (i.e. the armor of God) as clearly spiritual, even referencing the teachings of Jesus as our sword. (cross ref this with John 6:63 where Jesus equates his teachings with the Holy Spirit and Rev 19 where Jesus is describes as the word of God and a sharp sword coming out of his mouth).

And finally, in the Rev 13:10 verse, a situation is described where the saints patiently suffer themselves to be taken into captivity and killed for their faith. The context is the great tribulation (Cross ref this reference to patience with the 5th seal from Revelation 6:9-6 where the saints who were killed for Jesus' sake cry out asking "how long" and they are told to wait a bit longer 'till their fellow servants are killed as they themselves were).

In each case, there is a reasonable explanation which is consistent with what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and loving our enemies, but you still hold on to this idea that there is wiggle room there for doing exactly the opposite of what the verses actually say. "Our weapons are not carnal". You say this verse does not even imply any prohibition against using carnal weapons to deal with spiritual issues. How could you possibly come to that conclusion based on what the verse actually says?

 

[chessman]

And yet, the text talks about being struck on the cheek; actual physical violence. I don't think it's helpful in our attempts to discern a reasonable interpretation to water down what was actually said. You say it has "almost" nothing to do with the use of force. Can you please elaborate on this "almost" part?

Sure I can elaborate on the "almost" part. First, I agree with your statement that it's not helpful (nor good Bible study/living) to water down what is actually said. Thus the reason I said "almost nothing". Versus saying a slap on the cheek is nothing. But would you also then agree that it's not helpful to go beyond what is actually said?
Notice Jesus says "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" and says nothing about someone threatening your "life" or "limb" or someone else's life or limb. When someone slaps you on the cheek (or takes you to civil court), it is more of an insult (or request for your money) than it is a threat to your life. This Text says nothing about what to do when someone is threatening your life. So, don't use it beyond what is stated is my point. Back when Moses gave the "eye for an eye", etc. penalties it was God giving restrictions of to harsh of a penalty. You (God's people) should not just Impose a death penalty for all crimes. If someone damages your eye or tooth, you should not sentence them to death. Jesus was extending this concept to slaps and civil suits. If someone strikes you on the cheek, don't hit them over the head with a baseball bat seems to be His point. If you are like me, it's hard not to feel insulted (verbally or otherwise) and react back at the insulter even more agressively. But the fact is, Jesus tells us to NOT even react back to a strike on the cheek or a civil suit with even an insult or counter suit of equal weight, much less one with esculating weight.

I can address your other questions/points in your post later depending on your response here to your first point in disagreement with me.
But would you also then agree that it's not helpful to go beyond what is actually said? Jesus says nothing in the sermon about how to react when someone is threatening your life or anothers, right?

 

[john darling]

Hi chessman,

I think what you are doing with your interpretation is both "watering down" and "going beyond" at the same time. It's watering down in the sense that you suggest being struck on the cheek isn't really about physical violence, but more about not taking offense to insult. I think the teaching should include being able to shrug off feelings of insult, but the wording of the teaching clearly emphasizes physical assault, far from being "almost" in significance.

Then you go beyond by suggesting that because Jesus did not specify phrases like "self defense" or "life threatening" in the teaching that it's ok disregard those concepts against the spirit of what Jesus DID say. In other words, "silence is consent".

I think there can be some room for flexibility. If I see a person being assaulted I'll probably try to step in even if it's just to push the attacker away and/or to put myself between them. That may or may not work. If I see a person shooting a gun into a crowd, I may even throw a rock (or whatever) at him to halt the attack. But I think these kind of situations need to be the exception rather than the rule.

As Christians we need to accept the possibility that God may choose to allow us to suffer violence and pain, or even to die. It is this unwillingness to let go of life which needs to be challenged. Most of us probably have some idea that if we're in front of an inquisitor threatening to chop our head off if we don't renounce our faith in Jesus, we'd probably be fairly resolute about accepting the violence rather than trying to fight our way free. When the suffering has a connection to persecution the reason for the suffering is much more clear and acts as a comfort to get us through the pain.

It's different when the pain is the result of something more mundane like robbery or assault. But people don't need to say something like, "deny Jesus" to put our faith to the test. All they have to do is put us in a situation where we must choose between conforming to what Jesus said or acting contrary to what he said. In other words, the "inquisitor" is always there even if it's nothing more than average, everyday circumstances. This issue of choice is precisely what makes non violence such a powerful spiritual weapon.

When referencing his own death, Jesus boldly proclaimed that no one was taking his life from him; he was choosing to lay it down (john 10:18). He talked about the futility of struggling to save our own lives and the wisdom of losing our lives for his sake (Mt 16:25).

In Matthew 10:28-31 he tells us not to be afraid of the body dying because the soul is more important. He goes on to explain that there is nothing which God does not have complete control over and that he considers us to be important.

In Matthew 5:45 he talks about God allowing his rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Sometimes bad things will happen, even to the just and good things will happen even to the unjust. This teaching comes just after the admonishments to love those who hurt us. God loves us and has control over what happens to us, and yet he still allows bad things to happen but he does so precisely because he wants us to exercise the values of the Kingdom of Heaven, so that when someone threatens us with physical violence the values of Heaven are glorified when we refuse to give in to fear and instead choose to show faith and love even in the face of death.

We have a situation where we are like sheep thrown out amongst the wolves. We will be taken advantage of and hurt, but so what? This life is so temporary. God knows what is best for us. "Overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21). We overcome evil by responding with love, just like Jesus said "father forgive them" when he was being crucified. Stephen said much the same thing when he was killed (Acts 7:60). We also can strive for that kind of grace when we are faced with violence. It sounds foolish but it's the example we have.

Consider Revelation 12:11, "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death". They were able to overcome evil because they "loved not their lives unto the death". They didn't overcome evil by trying to save their lives.

So, in conclusion I think there could possibly be times when violence may be acceptable, but for the most part we need to be seriously praying about what it really means to lay our lives down for love.

 

[chessman]

I think the teaching should include being able to shrug off feelings of insult, but the wording of the teaching clearly emphasizes physical assault, far from being "almost" in significance.

I think that shurging off an insult is exactly what turning the other cheek means. No more, no less.
As for it teaching that we should shrug off violence above and beyound that of a slap to the cheek, not so. That would be going beyound what Jesus taught in this passage and others.

Actually, it clearly emphasizes that the physical and intentional destruction of a life, still deserves the agressor's life as punishment (Matt 5:21). It teaches that the intentional destruction of a person's eye still deserves the agressor's eye in judgment, the knocking out of a tooth, a tooth (Matt 5:38). All violence in declining order of evil. Thus declining even beyond knocking out someone's tooth, a slap to the cheek (Which is not like murder or loss of an eye, or even less viloent, the loss of a tooth) deserves no retaliation at all from a Christian. A civil suit for a small amount of money (non-physical) deserves to be paid. A request to borrow money deserves the loan. A request for a Christian's time/effort deserves to be granted.

But what Matt 5:38-42 does not emphasize is pacifism toward the violence of murder, rape, attempted murder, etc.

Do you think that Jesus was teaching that if someone violently poked out your or someone else's eye that you should just offer them your other eye? I don't.

 

[john darling]

I think that shurging off an insult is exactly what turning the other cheek means. No more, no less.

Shrugging off insult is part of turning the other cheek, but to suggest it is no more or less ignores what the verse actually says about physical violence. What you are doing is disregarding the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of the law. Your argument, in a nutshell, is something like "Jesus only said we should accept to be slapped on the cheek. He didn't say anything about other forms of violence".

But when you put this teaching together with all those other examples I listed about laying our lives down you will see that this legalistic interpretation is not consistent with the bigger picture.

Actually, it clearly emphasizes that the physical and intentional destruction of a life, still deserves the agressor's life as punishment (Matt 5:21).

I think this is a good example of how you are missing the spirit of the teaching. In one of your previous posts you misinterpreted several verses, one of which clearly said, "our weapons are not carnal" and yet you went on to promote the exact opposite contrary to what the teaching actually says.

Here you do something similar. The way you use the word "still" ignores all the "buts" Jesus used in Matthew 5 when comparing Old Testament standards to New Testament standards. Your arguments only work if you ignore what Jesus actually said.

Jesus does not use the word "still" or even imply the meaning of that word. He says, "you have heard it said". This is a past tense. Look at verse 39. He follows with a "but" statement indicating that he is modifying the standard; "In the past you took revenge when people hurt you, but now I'm telling you not to resist the evil that people will do to you".

All violence in declining order of evil. Thus declining even beyond knocking out someone's tooth, a slap to the cheek (Which is not like murder or loss of an eye, or even less viloent, the loss of a tooth) deserves no retaliation at all from a Christian.

It teaches that the intentional destruction of a person's eye still deserves the agressor's eye in judgment, the knocking out of a tooth, a tooth (Matt 5:38).

This is an area where you are adding to what Jesus said. He didn't say anything about descending orders of violence or give a cut-off at which point retaliation becomes justified. You are interpreting a point of view in which only the exact, specific examples Jesus mentioned should be considered, but even then you are not consistent in your own interpretation because you list losing an eye as a form of violence which is too violent to accept even though it's specifically mentioned by Jesus.

But what Matt 5:38-42 does not emphasize is pacifism toward the violence of murder, rape, attempted murder, etc.

I think you may have misunderstood pacifism. We do not allow ourselves to suffer violence for the sake of suffering violence. There is a reason and purpose to it both for us personally and for anyone looking on. For us, we need to be able to let go of everything including possessions, reputation, family and even our own lives.

For others, our job is to teach the world that evil achieves nothing. Even if they kill us, violently, we still win. When we refuse to fight back we show them that there really is something different than the evil in this world. We show them an alternative which goes far beyond sermons and good intentions. When they can see that this alternative is more important to us than even our lives, then they will see the kingdom of Heaven in action. They may not appreciate it. The lesson may be completely lost on them and they will go on to harm others. But so what? At least we have done what we can to promote the Kingdom of Heaven.

The problem I see in your interpretations is that they seem to presume that God will never ask you to choose to suffer violence for his sake. Instead, you have all these arguments for why you have the right to save yourself from violence. I think there needs to be more flexibility in your position. God will protect us but his protection is not absolute in the sense that we will never suffer harm.

God may ask us to suffer violence or to allow our loved ones to suffer violence. That is just part of the cost of confronting and challenging evil. I'm not suggesting that we should just sit back and watch if someone is being attacked in front of us, but neither do I think we should give in to fear or react in anger.

Be wise as serpants and harmless as doves. Matthew 10:16

 

[chessman]

You didn't answer my question; "Do you think that Jesus was teaching that if someone violently poked out your or someone else's eye that you should just offer them your other eye?". I can only assume from some of your ideas presented within your reply post that your answer is, Yes.

The way you use the word "still" ignores all the "buts" Jesus used in Matthew 5 when comparing Old Testament standards to New Testament standards

1. Jesus didn't say 'an eye for an eye' is no longer a valid law or it's a destroyed (old'n outdated) law when He said "but". Nor does He even imply it is no longer a valid punishment principle.

2. Actually, I'm not ignoring the word "but" in the other Matt 5 usages in the slightest. The word "but" does NOT mean that what Jesus said first (you've heard an eye for an eye) was/is no longer a valid law. Rather, it means what He says second has equal validity to what He said first (several thousand years earlier). Just look at the previous usage of the word "but" in verse 5:17 for another example of it's usage:

Matthew 5:17b (LEB) “... I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill them. ​

Jesus' fulfilling the Law does NOT destroy the previous laws (incuding the ones regulating adultery, murder, rape, etc.). The Law (then and now) requires us to punish someone in a measured way for their evil acts.
And yes, the Christian's measured reaction to a slap on the cheek is to not react back with another slap. That's Biblically based pacifism. But that doesn't say (Jesus didn't say) that the measured reaction to murder or attempted murder, or rape, etc. is now to 'turn the other cheek' to those partiular evils.

Your argument, in a nutshell, is something like "Jesus only said we should accept to be slapped on the cheek. He didn't say anything about other forms of violence".

Actually no, that's not my argument. You've misunderstood what's been stated. The Word in Matt 5:38 and in Ex 21 most certainly does say something about other forms of violence such as the destrction of another's life, limb or eye. But He goes on to say something ELSE about other forms of evil done against you such as; a slap on the cheek, a civil suit against you and a demand for your time.

My point, in a nutshell, is that the way a pacifist attempts to use Matt 5:38-39 to support their case ignores the fact that an 'eye for an eye' or other regulations against evil has NOT been destroyed by 'turn the other cheek'. You seem to think Jesus meant that the measured reaction to ALL evil acts is now to 'turn the other cheek'. That's not what He said, clearly.

But (rather) "turn the other cheek", "let him have your outer garment also" and "go with him two [miles]" are additional principles to the Exodus 21-22 regulations addressing other forms of measured reactions to other evil acts. And yes, my observation is still that these other forms of evil (v39's forms of evil) are rather obviously less evil than murder or attempted murder or rape in a declining manner. All the way to the point of a demand for you to spend your time/energy to walk with someone a mile. You've presented no evidence why that's not the case, really.

When we refuse to fight back we show them that there really is something different...

Yep. And when/if you fail to react with Biblically appropriate punishment to a murderer or an attempted murderer, or a rapist you also show them that you think Jesus destroyed the regulations against murder, attempted murder and rape respectively. When, in fact, He has not destroyed them by saying "turn the other cheek" to a slap on the face.

Romans 13:1-4 (LEB) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except by God, and those that exist are put in place by God. So then, the one who resists authority resists the ordinance which is from God, and those who resist will receive condemnation on themselves. For rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid, because it does not bear the sword to no purpose. For it is God’s servant, the one who avenges for punishment on the one who does what is bad. ​

 

[elijah23]

It is hard to tell a person that our Christian faith leads to happiness, while at the same time telling that same person that you have to let the Adolf Hitlers of the world have their way. We need to be able to defend ourselves and those we care about, I believe.

 

[WIP]

Please remember the forum guidelines found in the sticky at the top of the forum.

 

[john darling]

My point, in a nutshell, is that the way a pacifist attempts to use Matt 5:38-39 to support their case ignores the fact that an 'eye for an eye' or other regulations against evil has NOT been destroyed by 'turn the other cheek'. You seem to think Jesus meant that the measured reaction to ALL evil acts is now to 'turn the other cheek'. That's not what He said, clearly.

I don't know that it is possible to have all the answers; sometimes we just need to be in constant communion with God to know what to do. Maybe God will tell you to run away. Maybe he will tell you to call the police. Or maybe he will tell you to accept the suffering for his sake.

I believe that I am willing to face violence of any kind and I'm willing to run away or whatever. I believe it is this willingness that God is really looking for. There are many cases where Jesus gave a command and as followers we are obligated to obey. However, neither are Jesus' teachings just a "law"; they are spirit (John 6:63). Sometimes we are lazy. Sometimes we are greedy. Sometimes we are frightened or just plain ignorant. Some of Jesus' teachings are radical and extreme; we won't just naturally be the servant or turn the other cheek, or take the lowest seat, or forsake materialism, or work for love or love our enemies; we need motivation to act, especially when the actions are contrary to our naturally selfish human behavior.

The command helps us to get over those issues. It doesn't matter if we are frightened. We should still obey. It doesn't matter if we don't understand. We should still obey. It doesn't matter if we don't like it or we disagree with the logic or we have all our various reasons; we should still obey.

But once we start obeying, when we start applying the teachings and practicing them, we will come to better understand the reasons behind the command, and they will cease to be a command (Jn 7:17). We will do them because we understand them. We will start to see new applications of the command and how it's not really meant to be a command but a whole new way of living.

It's like that with violence. We see pain and suffering as something to avoid at all costs. Some of us have differing levels of what we're prepared to accept; insults, cheek slapping, eye gouging, murder etc... but the truth is that many of us have a line in the sand that we will not cross no matter what, even if it is God himself asking us to cross it.

Consider the story of Abraham and Issac.(Gen 22:12) God asked Abraham to stab his own son and Abraham was prepared to do it. Why? Because God just wanted to know if Abraham would do it? Well, yeah. God wants to know that he is the most important thing in life, beyond possessions, respectability, family and even our own lives.

This is why it is important to not water down the "turn the other cheek" teaching. I realize you believe you are giving a more precise interpretation but to me it looks like someone who is struggling with the concept of suffering. It comes across as "I'll do a lot for God, but this I will not do"! I don't begrudge you that since none of us really wants suffering, but at some point our relationship with God needs to reach a place where we're not explaining away all the discomfort.