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

[Choir Loft]

(Post Removed. response to a deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[Choir Loft]

I realize there are strong opinions and feelings both politically and personally regarding military service but our own personal experiences of time spent in service is not the topic of this thread. I would like to redirect this thread back to the topic of finding out how to reconcile pacifism with with Jesus's commendation of the Roman centurion otherwise I see this thread heading in an unpleasant direction.

Thanks.

Jesus' commendation of the Centurion had to do with his faith, not his uniform. It had to do with the man's relationship with Christ, not the Empire. Interpretations that tend to spin this encounter toward an endorsement of war and soldiery is pure heresy.

There are no substantive scholarly interpretations that I know of that include militarism in the equation. It is about the pure essence of faith in Christ Jesus. The Centurion was a goyim. A secondary inference from the encounter is that faith in Christ and the salvation available through Him would also be available to non-Jews. It got Jesus and His disciples in a lot of trouble - but it was religious trouble, not politically motivated support for the military.

The problem with excessive American militarism is that those who love war see a uniform everywhere - even in matters of faith where it does not exist at all. It wasn't always like that here, but that was then and today we suffer the curse of the bloodthirsty. Take your uniform off and look at the story again.

Jesus endorsed peace and faith for those who would abandon themselves to Him. He still does.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[sojourner4Christ]

You are picking at nits, sir. The premise here isn't who paid the taxes or when or why. Jesus said that things which are Caesar's are due to him. The argument for blind nationalistic militarism proceeds from there to Romans 13, which many presume to be the ultimate definition of national allegiance.

It isn't.

YOU GOT ALL OF THAT RIGHT!

Except,

the part about “picking at nits” is dead wrong. Rather, the $64,000 question that ties ALL OF THESE discussions here together is this:

Who is your authority? Who do you look to, for the authority to do the things you do? Because it is to that authority, to whom you will render. And if you’re looking to Caesar, as most are, then you will “render to Caesar what is due Caesar.” And no man can serve two masters.

To rephrase, what thing of Caesar’s are you partaking of, which would require a rendering to him?

...always remembering that there is a form of obedience that leads to death:

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Roma. 6:16).

Therefore, choose your authority wisely, grasshopper.

Also, you called me “sir.” I understand why you did it, it was in ignorance, but it’s improper, as “sir” is a title of nobility. Remember, God is no respector of persons (persona = status), and we are to be like him.

My point, as always, is that Jesus acted like a tourist from a foreign country. He paid taxes where due and obeyed the local laws. He was never convicted of breaking any of them despite His enemies extreme desire to do so.

Tourists don’t kick the local bankers out of so-called churches.

Even the apostles obeyed the laws.

What bible are you reading? The apostles were martyred! And who martyred them? The ungodly authority!

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.

Luke was hanged by idolatrous priests on an olive tree in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.

John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ was crucified.

James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Jesus went to during his Temptation.

James the Greater, a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.

Bartholomew, also know as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed to our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was flayed to death by a whip.

Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.

Thomas was stabbed with a spear (lance) in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the subcontinent.

Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.

Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.

Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.

Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero in Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament.

Jesus said that loyalty was due to God FIRST.

No, “Jesus said that loyalty was due to God EXCLUSIVELY.” No man can serve two masters.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Jesus' commendation of the Centurion had to do with his faith, not his uniform. It had to do with the man's relationship with Christ, not the Empire. Interpretations that tend to spin this encounter toward an endorsement of war and soldiery is pure heresy.

There are no substantive scholarly interpretations that I know of that include militarism in the equation. It is about the pure essence of faith in Christ Jesus. The Centurion was a goyim. A secondary inference from the encounter is that faith in Christ and the salvation available through Him would also be available to non-Jews. It got Jesus and His disciples in a lot of trouble - but it was religious trouble, not politically motivated support for the military.

The problem with excessive American militarism is that those who love war see a uniform everywhere - even in matters of faith where it does not exist at all. It wasn't always like that here, but that was then and today we suffer the curse of the bloodthirsty.

Jesus endorsed peace and faith for those who would abandon themselves to Him. He still does.

One of the most plain examples of the mindset of Jesus our Lord, in his temporal ministry, was his dealings with the Roman Centurion who besought him to heal his servant (Matthew 8:5-13).

First, this Centurion, this Roman Federal agent, was clearly a “believer,” even calling Jesus "Lord." It is clear from his response to Jesus that he possessed great faith in God. How did Jesus respond? Did he and his disciples run him off, this representative of brutally oppressive Rome, angrily screaming, “You jack-booted imperialist Roman thug! You murderous, sword-happy butcher! Get out of my sight! How dare you ask me for anything!”

No, He commended him for his great faith. He held him up as an example against his own people. He didn't “pigeon-hole” him to dehumanize him. He healed his servant.

Then at another point, we read where the Pharisees tried to hobble and silence Jesus through coercion, intimidation, and fear of the governing authorities, that being Herod at the time. Jesus knew even the Federal law enforcement community couldn't do anything to oppose God's work and will in his life-indeed, the same work in all our lives-until it was thoroughly accomplished. So, Jesus was somewhat blunt in his response to this silly “threat,” as it wasn't really a threat at all, and continued to operate in spite of the Federal presence.

Another powerful example of a servant of Christ dealing with an onerous law enforcement framework was Paul. Throughout the whole book of Acts and his ministry, Paul not only dealt effectively with the local and Federal law enforcement community, he thrived within it. Paul, at one time was a law enforcer, an officer representing a governing body, as we see recorded in the beginning of Acts 9 where he was given authority by the Jewish religious high command to bring any Christians he found, bound to Jerusalem (before the Lord “recruited” him on the road to Damascus). So it's true he might of had some pre-existing sympathy for the cops.

We read about one notable example of Paul in custody, the way he and Silas responded to it, and then the way Paul responded to the Phillipian jailer (Acts16: 25-30). If Paul had hated the cops, if he had an attitude of disrespect and contempt for them, he would surely have said nothing as this honorable jailer had committed suicide for his misguided belief he had let his prisoners escape. But Paul stopped him. Paul and Silas ended up witnessing to this, what would be a modern day “correctional officer,” and leading him and his house to the Lord. In Paul's mind, law enforcers were not enemies or people to be avoided and mistrusted, but people who he saw needed a real and dynamic relationship with the Lord, like everybody else.

Another example, in Acts 21, we see where Paul had found himself in the middle of a near riot situation as the Jews of the city were enraged at him. As they were in the process of pounding him into a bloody pulp, the local law enforcers strode in there, probably in full armor (riot gear) prepared for crowd control, and quite literally had to carry him out on their shoulders (Acts 21:33-35).

Was Paul glad to see the local cops? I'm sure he was! I'm sure he was quite gratified to see these law men muscling through the crowd, shouting commands and shoving people aside to get to him. I'm sure he realized after that, that the Lord had providentially protected him through these law enforcers so that he could continue on with his ministry. It possibly could have been all over right there. But the Lord used the Feds to protect him.

Another example we see of Paul's attitude towards the Federal law enforcement community and, indeed, their established respect and trust of him, can be seen in the account of the shipwreck in Acts 27. Indeed, we read that the Centurion, Julius, in charge of the prisoners and before the departure, “... courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself.” What a wonderful thing! How many federal or local cops would let a prisoner in custody do that?! The great trust between these people is undeniable.

As the journey by ship took place, we see that a great storm overtook them, yet with Paul's counsel, that encouragement being received from the “angel of God,” they grounded the ship on the island of Melita. The soldiers in charge of the prisoners wanted to kill them, lest they escape, but the relationship Paul had established with the Centurion, the senior officer in charge, prevented that also.

When Paul finally made it to Rome, we see the Centurion “delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.” Protective custody. In the final chapter of Acts, we see that Paul's reputation, integrity, and his open relationship with the Roman federal law enforcement community served him well, even for many years afterwards.

In light of clear scriptural precedent in dealing with the governing authorities, much of the material I read, and the attitudes I see on the part of people who claim to be Christians, is discouraging. Christ spent his entire life in a region occupied by troops of a foreign conqueror. Hence, his message was delivered in an occupied country. Still, the gospel records indicate that he never gave the slightest support to any movement aimed at a military revolution that might bring national freedom.

Even as it was in Imperial Roman occupied Israel, so it is in America today. It's a matter of humility and repentance before God. A much quoted verse, to the point it has almost lost its meaning, says this,

2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Yet many fail to see who this is directed at. Not the unbelievers, not the liberals, not the anarchists and anti-authority types, not the atheists. The Lord is saying, “My people.”

The American culture is obsessed with salvation by politics. We as a corporate body cannot comprehend any other way of changing the culture. They do not understand that God changes cultures by the preaching of the word. Nineveh's culture was not changed by Jonah getting elected king or arguing that Nineveh stop socialism or stealing from her citizens. It was changed when God ordered him to preach.

 

[reba]

closed to clear up copy right information

 

[reba]

TOS 2.6 Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info. We want to respect copyrighted material. Be sure at minimum to cite your source and keep all posts in compliance with Fair Use copyright law.

 

[jmt356]

1 Overview
This post is my response to all of the posts on my thread that were published since my March 22, 2015 post. Given the limit on 10,000 characters, I am breaking it up into several parts.
2 Butch5 – 1st post

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.

Perhaps it is possible to buy a sword today and use it as a decoration or for sport rather than to commit a violent act against another person. But I have a hard time conceiving why Peter or another disciple would buy a sword and carry it with him in a remote place at night if he did not intend to use it against another person. The sword was so sharp that it was able to cut off an ear, which probably means that it was not a sword used for mere sport or decoration.

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.

I believe you are saying that because most of the Christians that translated the Bible were just war theorists rather than pacifists, they translated machaira as “sword” rather than the more accurate “knife.” I do not however believe that is how it works. I believe there is much more of a science to translating texts that simply picking what the translator wants a text to state and then translating it in that way. An ethical translator would put his personal beliefs aside and look to objective evidence (e.g., the context of machaira in other texts) in accurately translating a word and then base his belief on the translation rather than base the translation on his belief. To state that every major translation mistranslated a text because of mistaken believes about the use of force in Christianity is a serious ethical charge against every translator of the sacred texts.
What is the predominant belief on this issue in Christianity today?

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 agree with your methodology. However, of the 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. In each of these texts, machaira is clearly used as instrument of violent force (e.g., “they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” (Luk 22:49); “the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live” (Rev. 13:14), etc.). In the other half, machaira could conceivably be translated as a “knife,” but there is not a single verse where the meaning of “knife” is unequivocal. The fact that half of the verses unequivocally translate as “sword” perhaps sheds some light on how the remaining verses should be translated.

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.

This is not just about 15 translations. These are 15 major, mainstream translations and they are every translation I have consulted. I imagine that as I continue to search, all remaining translations would also translate machaira in Matthew 26:51 as “sword.”
The “appeal to authority” argument is like saying that we should not believe that Jesus rose on the third day just because 4 Evangelists and Paul believed it was so and wrote it down in their Gospels and Epistles. Of course, Orthodox Christians believe that the writings of Evangelists and Paul, unlike the beliefs of those who believed the world was flat, were divinely inspired.
As for the translators, to my knowledge they were orthodox Christians who most likely were praying for God’s direction and guidance when undertaking the translations. Perhaps some of them erred here and there, but I find it incredible that all of them would mistranslate the same term everywhere where it appears in 15 translations in English, French, Spanish and Arabic.

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?

Perhaps neither Paul nor the translation is wrong. The translations state that the “statute,” not the priesthood, is “for ever” (ASV), “forever” (MKJV, NKJV) or “perpetual” (ESV, RSV). The statute is forever in the sense that it is God’s word, even though the statute, like all of the Old Testament laws, were fulfilled by Christ. However, while the statutes were fulfilled, they were never abolished (Mat 5:17). Perhaps then it is possible to say that the statute, like all Old Testament laws, is perpetual, though it has been fulfilled and the Aaronic priesthood is no more.

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

Do you think there are more or less?

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?

I have not found this to be the case. In the translations I consulted, machaira was always translated into English as “sword” (or into the equivalent of “sword” in other languages, such as “épée” in French) and never as “knife.”

Here we have machaira translated Knife.
LXE Genesis 22:6 And 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.}

This is not an instance of the Greek machaira that is used in Matthew 26:51. The word used in Genesis 22:6 is Strong’s H3979—the Hebrew ma'akeleth (מַאֲכֶלֶת), which is pronounced “mah·ak·eh'·leth” and only has the singular meaning “knife”—not Strong’s G3162, the Greek μάχαιρα (machaira, pronounced mä'-khī-rä), which could mean “knife” or “sword.”

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)

[/QUOTE]
Again, this is not an instance of the Greek machaira (μάχαιρα) that is used in Matthew 26:52. Rather, it is an instance of the Strong’s H2719—the Hebrew chereb (חרב), pronounced kheh'-reb, which can mean “knife” or “sword.” Perhaps it is translated as “dagger” because it was small enough to be fastened under Ehud’s clothes on his right thigh (Jdg 3:16).
Perhaps one could make the argument that because the same word (machaira) is used in Greek for sword and knife, the functions of both were folded up in a single instrument; thus, whether Peter was carrying around a long knife or short sword, the item could have the same function, which could be both a weapon of self-defense or offense as well as a survival tool (e.g., like a Swiss Army knife). Thus, just because Jesus did not command Peter to discard the machaira does not necessarily mean that Jesus was condoning Peter’s possession of a lethal weapon.

 

[jmt356]

1 Butch5 – 2d post

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.

I agree that “machaira” can be translated as “knife” or “sword.”

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.

True, but if the instance of machaira that appears in Matthew 26:51 is a “sword,” then I think we can be somewhat certain that it is a weapon to be used for violence. What other purpose could be served by a sword so sharp that it can cut off an ear and that is carried around on Peter’s person?

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?

It need not necessarily be a weapon of war. It could simply be a weapon, but not of the industrial grade intended for war.
Whether Romans would permit Jews to carry around weapons is a good question. Some societies, such as the US, are armed societies; other societies prohibit the possession of arms. If historians can show that Jews were prohibited from carrying around arms, then we would be able to conclude that Jesus was commanding Peter to put a knife, not a sword, back in its place. This is a question that would need to be taken to the historians. To my knowledge, the Jewish zealots managed to carry around weapons under Roman occupation. Why not Peter?
2 Diane

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...

Of course, God is a god of vengeance and justice. Evildoers are subject to the punishment of the civil authorities (Rom 13:4), which are appointed by God (Rom 13:1), and the day of judgment (Mat 10:15; Mat 11:22; Mat 11:24; Mat 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2Pe 2:9; 2Pe 3:7; 1Jn 4:17; etc.). But the day of judgment is the Lord’s, and just because some attribute or act is attributed to does not necessarily mean that Christians are also called to that act or attribute. Adam was forbidden from taking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17) because he was not to share this knowledge with God.
The fact that God punishes evil no more means that Christians are called to participate in that punishment system than does the fact that God is omniscient mean that Christians are called to share God’s omniscience. The question is thus whether man is called to participate in the “sword” of the governments of the kingdoms of the world or whether his citizenship is to be exclusively with the kingdom of God.
3 john darling

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.

This is interesting; I never connected the Luke 22:36-38 account commanding the purchase of a sword with the Garden at Gethsemane scene that occurred just thereafter (Luke 22:51) as being part of the same continuous account. It now seems that the latter is a continuation of the former: Jesus initially ordered the purchase of knives / swords, but at the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked Peter for using the knife / sword in a violent way. Perhaps then Jesus meant that the disciples would require knives and swords, but He did not intend for them to be used against other men in violence. Jesus thus commands the purchase of knives / swords, but after Peter uses it in an act of violence in Jesus’s defense, Jesus commands him to “Put your sword in its place” (Mat 26:52), perhaps implying that there is some use other than violence against men for which the knife / sword must be reserved.
4 chessman

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?

 

[jmt356]

1 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.
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.

Actually, in Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus overrules the Old Testament principle of lex talionis, which was established in the Mosaic law (“if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exo 21:23-25)) and that was reiterated in the Psalms (“O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!” (Psa 137:8)).
Consider also Richard B Hays’ commentary:
“The lex talionis (“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”) may have originated, as most commentators note, as a rule limiting the vengeance that might be exacted by an aggrieved party: that is, no more than an eye for an eye. That is how the rule apparently functions in Exodus 21:24. If the saying is understood in those terms, then Matthew 5:39 can be understood as conforming to the pattern of heightening the Torah’s demand: where the Torah restricts retaliation, Jesus forbids it altogether.
“In Deuteronomy 19:15-21, however, the lex talionis has a prescriptive function. False witnesses are to be punished with exactly the same punishment that would have been inflicted on the one whom they have falsely accused. Deuteronomy insists that the punishment must be exacted as a deterrent to future offenses” (Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, pp. 324-25).
The text of Deuteronomy 19:18-19 states: “And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.” Thus, in commanding His followers not to exact vengeance, Jesus overrules the text of Deuteronomy 19:18-19, which directly commands that the Judges do to a false witness that which he sought to do to his brother.

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 (including 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.

You are saying that the word “but” does not mean that what Jesus said in the first clause was not valid. To demonstrate your point, you give Matthew 5:17, as though the second half of the clause “but to fulfill” is not intended to negate the first half of the clause (“I did not come to destroy”). I must respectfully disagree. The use of “but” in Matthew 5:17 is intended to demonstrate that the idea in the first part of the clause (that Jesus came to destroy) is invalid and inapplicable. Similarly, the use of “but” in the Fifth Antithesis (But I tell you not to resist an evil person” (Mat 5:39)) is intended to contrast and negate the idea expressed in the first part of the clause (“You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'” (Mat 5:38)).
I do not believe the use of the word “but” means that the ideas expressed on either side of the conjunction have “equal validity,” as you say. Rather, it is intended to give dominance and superiority to the clause that follows the conjunction “but.”

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.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that if someone slaps us on the cheek, we are to turn the other cheek; if someone wants to sue us, we are to give what is being demanded; if someone demands our time, we are to give it freely. However, if someone does violence to our eye or tooth, we are to apply lex talionis: An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth.
In other words, lex talionis still stands as a general principle, but Jesus only modifies it in three specific circumstances:
- When someone slaps us on the cheek;
- When someone sues us; and
- When someone demands our time.
In these cases, we are to submit to what the aggressor is demanding. In all other cases, we are to apply Old Testament lex talionis because it has not been abolished.
If that is your view, then I believe it is flawed. In each of the six antitheses, Jesus is heightening a moral standard; he is trying to take us closer to God’s standard of love. In the fifth antithesis (Mat 5:33-37), Jesus states that “it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord,’” but Jesus commands, “do not swear at all.”
Similarly, I believe that in the fifth antithesis, Jesus wants us not to retaliate at all against evil. The examples given of slapping the cheek, being sued and having our time demanded are merely intended to be examples of a greater principle of non-retaliation, in the example set by Jesus against those who abused and ultimately murdered him.

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.

Not necessarily; you could also be showing them that you think you should follow Jesus’s example of peace, non-violence and non-retaliation and that you believe it is up to the civil authority, appointed by God, to apply violence, justice and retribution (Rom 13:4).

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.

I do not question that God punishes unrepentant sinners for their wrongdoing, or that He uses civil authorities to enact punishment. I question whether Christians are to be a part of this system of vengeance.
Christians are commanded: “Do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,’” (Rom 12:19). In the following chapter, Paul lays out how God punishes evil: through civil authorities (Rom 13).
Also, you seem to place all of your emphasis on Jesus’s words, “I came not to abolished the law,” but you forget to give any weight to the second half of his statement, “but to fulfill it” (Mat 5:17). To ignore the second half of Jesus’s statement does, in fact, mean that lex talionis (“AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH” (Mat 5:38)) continues to apply. But it also means that the rest of the Old Testament law also continues to apply. This would mean that anyone who profanes the Sabbath is to be put to death; anyone found to work on the Sabbath is to be cut off from his people (Exo 31:14); anyone who curses his parents is to be put to death (Exo 21:17).
2 John Darling

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.

John Darling: chessman is saying that he does not interpret Matthew 5:38-39 (“Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person”) as an abrogation of the Old Testament law. Rather, Jesus is saying that lex talionis continues to apply, except for three cases: (i) when someone slaps us on the cheek; (ii) when someone sues us; and (iii) when someone compels us to go one mile (i.e., takes our time). Christians are thus commanded to continue to apply the Old Testament law of vengeance.
What is your response to this?

 

[jmt356]

1 sojourner4Christ (#42)

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)
…
In the passage above, we have a description of one man who would INSULT another man by slapping him on the cheek. It's an attempt to incite, not inflict damage. The word says, don’t buy into that; don’t return his evil with evil. And don’t buy into Caesarian law suits; don’t refuse one who asks you to walk the distance with him; don’t refuse one who would borrow from you.

I am not sure I agree with this analysis. First off, “slapping” someone on the right cheek does not necessarily imply only an insult; a slap can also be an act of violence. But even if “slapping” were merely an insult rather than an act of violence, there are many other translations of Matthew 5:39 that connote an act of physical violence rather than a mere insult. Consider:
- ASV: “whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek”;
- BBE: “gives you a blow on the right side of your face”;
- Darby “strike thee on thy right cheek”;
But even if the translation were more accurately rendered as “slap,” I see no reason why slapping someone on the right cheek is necessarily an insult but slapping him on the left is not. I believe Jesus was simply distinguishes between the two sides of the face to make clear that if someone slaps you on one side, turn the other one also. His intended meaning would have been no different had he instead said, “whoever slaps you on your left cheek, turn the other to him also.”

The cited verse, in its context, has little to do with pacifism or self-defense. It has everything to do with overcoming evil with good.

One of the evils that it is discussing is the evil of violence. It urges Christians to overcome violence with forbearance.

Even Christ Himself did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23), or when struck on the face by the palms of the Roman guards (Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:64).
Matthew 5:39 is speaking about the custom of the Romans when a superior would demand obedience from an inferior. Christ was showing disdain for them when he said to turn the other cheek. When struck by a Roman superior in the first century, you where to drop to one knee or put your forehead in the dirt before them. To turn the other cheek to him would be a very defiant act when you were struck on the face. We are not to resist with violence, of course, but with love. That is truly resisting evil.

If you don’t believe that Matthew 5:39 is about pacifism, then why do you say we are not to resist with violence? Isn’t Old Testament lex talionis still in application?

 

[Choir Loft]

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
- Jesus (as quoted in Matt 5:39)

When Jesus told His disciples to 'turn the other cheek' He was expressing a statement of courage and determination. In order to refrain from violent responses several things must be present in the heart.

One is the courage to 'take it on the chin', so to speak. To accept a brutal assault and neither run from it or respond to it. Any mad dog or war monger can respond with instant violent reprisal. The disciple of Christ is to refrain from doing so.(1)

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them."
- Deuteronomy 32:36

One is the resolve to follow Christ no matter the consequence or suffering. This is called 'carrying one's cross'.

One is obedience to God in allowing God to function as only God can - to allow God the reprisal. God has promised that aggressors WILL be punished. Another reason to refrain from returning an assault is trust that God will indeed exact just punishment upon an aggressor.

Which brings me to the basic premise of my post;

IF GOD DOES NOT JUDGE AMERICA HE WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH.
- Shanghai curse August 1937

"The US government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. circa 1966

God will exact judgment upon an aggressor according to Deuteronomy and that includes nations as well as individuals. That includes the United States, for we are not as exceptional as we like to think we are. We are not God's hand to subdue nations.

"Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as His divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, 'You are too arrogant. If you don't change your ways I will rise up and break the back bone of your power.'"
- Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. (circa 1967) (2)

It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to follow the example of the Son of God. Not only are we to refrain from violent reprisal resulting from a personal attack, but we are to oppose national political policies of wanton aggression and crimes of war(3) against innocent people and nations.

The final question I have to ask is; How can a man profess to be a follower of Christ and deny the command of God to refrain from violence? How can such a man glorify murder and the policies of an aggressor nation? The answer should be obvious to anyone who seeks God. To the rest it will seem foolishness.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(1) In case you're wondering, I am a white man who was the victim of a racist assault by a black man. I did not respond with violence and I did not press charges with the local police.

(2) Twin back bones of America are its money and its military. American financial preeminence among nations has already withered to the point of near collapse as most experts state. The American military is no longer 'combat ready' for many reasons too numerous to list here.

(3) Following the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003, the United Nations declared that American aggression against the nation of Iraq was a war crime. It was also illegal according to US law, previously known as the Constitution. War cannot be waged upon another nation without a congressional declaration of war. There was none, therefore the action was illegal according to international as well as US law not to mention the precepts of the Almighty stated in Deuteronomy and Jesus Christ His Son.

 

[WIP]

This forum is not for preaching one's views. In this forum your statements must be supported by Scripture. Please post the Scriptural references to support what you post.

 

[john darling]

I really enjoyed reading Sojourners explanation about taxes and the situation where Peter was prevented by Jesus from paying the tax with the community funds, but rather was sent back to his old life work to find the money to fulfill his word.

I'd also like to support his case about the "give to Caesar" teaching. My friends and I read that chapter this morning (coincidentally) and discussed it.

MK 12:14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

MK 12:15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

MK 12:16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

MK 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

The context was that they were trying to trap Jesus. They were not genuinely seeking God's will. Jesus' answer is given in that context. He recognized them as hypocrites and tempters so the thing about "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" is part of avoiding the trap. It's not a general teaching like we'd find in the sermon on the mount or like he would usually do with his disciples. Otherwise he would not have bothered to include the thing about giving to God. When they asked,"is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar" he would have just said, "yeah, give to Caesar what belongs to him". The fact that he followed it up with "and give to God what belongs to God" shows just how ridiculous the question was to begin with. It's like saying, "give to this mortal man what he claims to be his, and then give to the creator of all the universe what belongs to the creator". Obviously, when we've given to the creator what belongs to the Creator, there is nothing left for the mortal man to claim.

The reason why it's significant is because people generally use the "give to Caesar" teaching to justify serving Mammon (money and the things money can buy) rather than seeking God's kingdom first. I believe this is what Sojourner was referring to when he referenced not being able to work for two masters. (Matthew 6:24-34)

There is also the issue of taxes being used to fund national military campaigns. However, I think the deeper issue isn't so much about avoiding certain immoral activities (like war and military) but to get it clear who we should be giving our time/loyalty to; God or Money?

 

[john darling]

Christians are thus commanded to continue to apply the Old Testament law of vengeance.
What is your response to this?

Can you please post the scripture where Jesus commanded Christians to take revenge?

 

[LovethroughDove]

Romans 12:17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If you enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

We are to do the opposite of take revenge. We are to feed them and give him something to drink.

 

[Drew]

Had military service been incompatible with being a member of Kingdom of God, surely John the Baptist, Jesus and Peter would have made some note of this or they would have counseled the soldiers to abandon the military.

I don't find this line of reasoning to be very convincing. Clearly, Jesus (and His followers) were always encountering people with a myriad of sins in their lives; there simply would not have been time for Jesus (and the others) to rebuke each person they met over each area of sin in that person's life.

Besides, Jesus is pretty clear in his face-off with Pilate that He opposes the use of force on the part of His followers: He basically tells Pilate that it is in the very nature of Kingdom-of-God citizenship that the use of the sword be rejected. Paraphrasing: "My kingdom is not like earthly kingdoms (and your kingdom in particular, Pilate). If it was (like your kingdom) my followers would use the sword to rescue me. But, my kingdom (and my subjects) are different - they do not use the sword."
[Provide Scripture reference per forum guidelines, please.]

 

[Sparkey]

Drew's comment above sounds like a paraphrase of John 18:36 and thereabouts (to me).

That being the case, we will do well to consider the exact quote: "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

 

[Sparkey]

While Jesus does not point out to the centurion that his military service was sin, Jesus does not hesitate to point out sin in other instances where such sin needed to be corrected:

Argumentum ex Silentio
Argue from silence much? Just because the gospel writers did not include a rebuke does not mean it was or was not given. (John 21:25)

The fact that of all of the Gentiles, God used a soldier to graft Gentiles into the Kingdom of God gives an imprimatur to the institution of the military.

If that is the case, one may also commend murderers because God used Paul (Saul) to establish the grafting of the Gentiles. (Acts 8:1-5, Acts 9:1-2, 1 Cor 15:9-10)


I like a couple posts better than most others. Is that wrong of me? Here they are:

Romans 12:18;
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone".

... This would (to me) seem to get the spirit of the NT - promoting peace but not explicitly disallowing violence.

 

[Choir Loft]

"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies."
Amos 5:21

God despises hypocrisy, especially in the solemn assembly. That goes for the church today as well as the Hebrew temple of Amos' day. God has not changed. We have.

"For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God: and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?"
1Pe 4:17-18

Judgment begins against the church because American Christians have exchanged their spiritual heritage for the worldly desires of 'situation ethics', 'name-it-and-claim-it' gospel, 'my country right or wrong' or sexual abominations to name a few.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
- Jesus as quoted in Matt 6:24

Is it right to bake a rainbow cake? Despite the word of man, it is not. It never has been and it will never be so. Commerce with the enemy is to invite damnation.

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
- James 4:4

Yet despite the clear and unequivocal statements of the Word of God, wickedness pervades the church and the country. No one wants to hear the truth. No one wants righteousness. Everyone goes his own way and justifies his own debauched opinion instead of Holy Writ.

"Yet your fellow citizens say, 'The way of the Lord is not right', when it is their own way that is not right."
- Ezekiel 33:17

Many Christians foolishly believe that they will be evacuated from the world before judgment comes upon us. This is nothing less than a self-important fools dream. There will be no evacuation. The fantasy of the consort of witches will not stand. Watch and learn, pilgrim.

"I pray NOT that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one."
-John 17:15

Which part of "NOT" does the church NOT understand? That part which allows one and all to continue in sin as though some sort of license was given? There is no such thing granted. That which is an abomination still is so. National aggression against innocent countries is STILL a sin and the nation that practices it will suffer for their wickedness.

God bless America? I think NOT. The days of blessings upon the USA are over and they will not return again for a very long time. Look around you! Do you not see it? Judgment has begun. We are seeing one damn thing after another assailing us, yet in our pride and arrogance we still believe that we are somehow so exceptional that even God cannot rise against us. This is nothing less than madness and naked sin.

"So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you."
- Jeremiah 7:16/11:14

God will NOT hear prayers for blessings upon America any longer. He WILL hear the prayer of the penitent and the contrite in spirit and He WILL have mercy upon those individuals. But His patience with America is at an end. Watch and learn, pilgrim.

Whether you like it or not, foul days are upon us. Those who speak soft words and positive thinking speak with the forked tongue of the devil. It is better to humble one's self before God than to consider the words of a sweet talker.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

 

[WIP]

"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies."
Amos 5:21

God despises hypocrisy, especially in the solemn assembly. That goes for the church today as well as the Hebrew temple of Amos' day. God has not changed. We have.

"For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God: and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?"
1Pe 4:17-18

Judgment begins against the church because American Christians have exchanged their spiritual heritage for the worldly desires of 'situation ethics', 'name-it-and-claim-it' gospel, 'my country right or wrong' or sexual abominations to name a few.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
- Jesus as quoted in Matt 6:24

Is it right to bake a rainbow cake? Despite the word of man, it is not. It never has been and it will never be so. Commerce with the enemy is to invite damnation.

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
- James 4:4

Yet despite the clear and unequivocal statements of the Word of God, wickedness pervades the church and the country. No one wants to hear the truth. No one wants righteousness. Everyone goes his own way and justifies his own debauched opinion instead of Holy Writ.

"Yet your fellow citizens say, 'The way of the Lord is not right', when it is their own way that is not right."
- Ezekiel 33:17

Many Christians foolishly believe that they will be evacuated from the world before judgment comes upon us. This is nothing less than a self-important fools dream. There will be no evacuation. The fantasy of the consort of witches will not stand. Watch and learn, pilgrim.

"I pray NOT that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one."
-John 17:15

Which part of "NOT" does the church NOT understand? That part which allows one and all to continue in sin as though some sort of license was given? There is no such thing granted. That which is an abomination still is so. National aggression against innocent countries is STILL a sin and the nation that practices it will suffer for their wickedness.

God bless America? I think NOT. The days of blessings upon the USA are over and they will not return again for a very long time. Look around you! Do you not see it? Judgment has begun. We are seeing one damn thing after another assailing us, yet in our pride and arrogance we still believe that we are somehow so exceptional that even God cannot rise against us. This is nothing less than madness and naked sin.

"So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you."
- Jeremiah 7:16/11:14

God will NOT hear prayers for blessings upon America any longer. He WILL hear the prayer of the penitent and the contrite in spirit and He WILL have mercy upon those individuals. But His patience with America is at an end. Watch and learn, pilgrim.

Whether you like it or not, foul days are upon us. Those who speak soft words and positive thinking speak with the forked tongue of the devil. It is better to humble one's self before God than to consider the words of a sweet talker.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

Choir Loft This post sounds more like street corner preaching. Please explain how this addressed the topic of this thread.