Turn The Other Cheek ?

[Drew]

Hello Lewis:

In answer to your question, I would probably defend myself. But that is not the point. The point is what would Jesus have us do. And one cannot apply "common sense" to answer that question, precisely because so much of what Jesus tells us is not common sense. Common sense tells us to "enjoy life", Jesus tells us to "deny ourselves"

 

[Drew]

The material that Gary provided was fairly informative, but after a careful read of it, I am not that convinced that the words "do not resist an evil person" are not general in their implications. The argument that he provides seems to gain purchase from reference to Jesus' actions against the money-changers and a general "argument-from-context" - that the subject at hand was the specific matter of revenge-taking.

However, I find the latter a little unconvincing for the following reason. Suppose Jesus walked up to me and said, "Drew, you have heard it said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I say to you, 'do not resist an evil person'". I would walk away wondering whether his "do not resist an evil person" was a general statement or whether he really meant "do not resist an evil person in the "don't take revenge" sense". The latter interpretation seems a little forced - context can only do so much. After all, the context argument should not disallow Jesus from following it with a general statement if He wanted to.

Suppose, for the sake of argument that Jesus really intended to tell us to not defend ourselves. Would you guys say he would need to say something like: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' And now I am going to stop talking about revenge in particular and begin to talk generally. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person" This seems a little silly, doesn't it?

The argument from Gary still seems to assume that the "do not resist an evil person" statement cannot be an attempt by Jesus to make a more general statement that does not only apply to issues of revenge-taking.

In the material from Gary, we have:

Anthisteµmi (resist) means to set against or oppose, and in this context obviously refers to harm done to us personally by someone who is evil. Jesus is speaking of personal resentment, spite, and vengeance

The first sentence is not controversial. The second one seems to entail a hidden assumption - that Jesus is not expanding on the "do not take revenge" teaching to more general teaching that evil is not be resisted at all.

This is an interesting topic and I think that the right choice is by no means obvious.

 

[antitox]

Sokay if you want to take that stance, but pray that you never find yourself or your loved ones in a nasty situation cause there are some real nasty ones out there. I will go with what is shown in law:

(Ex 22:2) "If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him; but if the sun has risen upon him, there shall be bloodguilt for him."

God shows me here that if I have to defend my home against a thief in the night, that I'm ok to do so. But if I kill a person and try to prevent discovery and it is found later, that there is a probable murder.

Jesus said he fulfilled the law. That means he brought forth it's full intent. He did not contradict the law. And neither did he oppose it.

(Rom 7:12) "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good."

(Rom 7:14) "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin."

This is so easy to understand and so plain, it amazes me that some on this board can't get it.

 

[Lewis]

This is so easy to understand and so plain, it amazes me that some on this board can't get it.
_________________

Amen

 

[Gary]

Drew. you are taking the "do not resist an evil person" out of context.

Jesus provides the examples.

"After establishing the basic principle in Matthew 5:39a, in verses 39b-42 Jesus picks out four basic human rights that He uses to illustrate the principle of non-retaliation: (1) dignity, (2) security, (3) liberty, and (4) property."

Personally, I find it very clear.... it may be a very hard saying but to those in His Kingdom, His slaves, it makes sense.

I strongly suspect that those outside of His Kingdom and not born of the Spirit will resist His teachings. They usually do. This thread is proof of that.

Jesus' teachings are for His slaves, His followers. His slaves hear and follow Him.

Regards
Gary
(Slave to my Lord Jesus Christ)

 

[Drew]

Jesus said he fulfilled the law. That means he brought forth it's full intent. He did not contradict the law. And neither did he oppose it.

If this is so, does that mean the law is still in effect? - are people still to be put to death for blasphemy? Please explain.

Besides, just as Jesus "went one step further" in declaring that thinking adulterous thoughts was just as bad as committing adultery, how do we know that Jesus was not "bringing forth the full intent of the law" by extending the prohibition against revenge to a prohibition against self-defence.

If we kill an enemy in self-defence, we take away any chance they might have to come to repentence. How can killing, even in self-defence be construed as an act of love?

This is so easy to understand and so plain, it amazes me that some on this board can't get it.

I am perfectly happy to let the quality of my arguments speak for themselves. One of our goals here (I presume) is to be a light for the unbelievers who frequent this board. They are not fools (unless BB corrects me on this) - they can recognize both strong and weak arguments. They will hopefully judge based on the actual content of the arguments.

 

[Drew]

Hello Gary:

Do you really mean to imply that not seeing this issue the way that you do is a litmus test for "being in the Kingdom" or "being born of the Spirit". Your post strongly implies this. If you are willing to hear these words from someone who might not see things your way on this topic - please do not go there, my brother.

Gary, I still do not see how a convincing argument against pacifism in respect to self-defence has been made. Of course, Jesus was talking about revenge in the sentence preceding his "do not resist an evil person", no one disputes that.

It has been argued by you and others that, in his next sentence, Jesus is still talking about revenge - that the "do not resist an evil person" has to do with taking revenge. Lets look at the text again:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person."

The use of the word "but" strongly suggests modification or amplification of some sort. Presumably Jesus would not say "you have heard x but I say y" if "y" was simply a restatement of x. But this seems to be what you are implicitly arguing. Why would Jesus use the word "but" if he was not teaching something new. His audience would understand that the "eye for an eye" was an admonition against revenge, as I believe you have argued. So what is the reason for the "but" if not as a means to introduce some new additional teaching or in some way qualify the OT teaching against revenge? It seems difficult to argue that he is saying "do not act vengefully" since this has already been dealt with before the "but".

I expect you will argue that He is explaining the "spirit" behind the "eye for an eye" admonition - getting at the principle that undergirds the law, rather than outlawing self-defence. To show that I am a reasonable person, I will grant that this is possible. However, it is also possible that he is giving a new teaching altogether.

Elsewhere in Matt 5, Jesus says "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

The form of this is pretty clear - Jesus is saying something fundamentally new, by saying that we are to love (and not hate) our enemies. Why is this of any relevance?

It demonstrates that, since Jesus repeatedly uses this same "you have heard x but I say y" structure throughout this narrative, it is at least an open question as to whether "do not resist an evil person" is just an explanation of principle underlying the anti-revenge teaching or an expansion of the teaching to encompass a pacifist approach generally (including self-defence).

 

[antitox]

Jesus said he fulfilled the law. That means he brought forth it's full intent. He did not contradict the law. And neither did he oppose it.

[If this is so, does that mean the law is still in effect? - are people still to be put to death for blasphemy? Please explain.

In essence it is, but Christians are not under the law.

(Rom 6:14) "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under the law but under grace."

But as I stated before (and quoted the scriptures), the law is holy, just and good; because it agrees with God and His nature. Therefore, the law states the will of God, but it was designed to be a custodian until Christ came. But since we are under grace, we do not live under the law. So today, we have the OT showing us in the form of law the will of God. Most people do not understand the spirit of the law, and that's what I'm getting at here. That's why people write off the OT in favor of the NT; because they don't understand that the NT is the OT revealed.

Besides, just as Jesus "went one step further" in declaring that thinking adulterous thoughts was just as bad as committing adultery, how do we know that Jesus was not "bringing forth the full intent of the law" by extending the prohibition against revenge to a prohibition against self-defence.

Well first of all, adultery is not an applicable to this because it is simply taking the matter down to where it originates, the heart. Jesus did that in alot of his statements.
Secondly, Jesus never said anything implying that the law was wrong. Everything he said was in agreement with the heart of the law.

If you take the position that God is telling us anything different, then you would have to say that Jesus is declaring the OT law and judgments as wrong and against God's will. God does not contradict Himself. He does not change. God did not change His divine nature from covenant to covenant.

If we kill an enemy in self-defence, we take away any chance they might have to come to repentence. How can killing, even in self-defence be construed as an act of love?

Love must do justice to the masses. If it favors one person, yet robs everyone else in some way, it become more unjust than what was done at the start.
God ordained execution because if you do not deal with the evil, the evil will propagate and destroy. Don't you watch the news? The murderer is freed and kills somone else again. Didn't Steely Dan once say, "You go back, Jack, and do it again, ....we'll turn em round and round...?"

This is so easy to understand and so plain, it amazes me that some on this board can't get it.

I am perfectly happy to let the quality of my arguments speak for themselves. One of our goals here (I presume) is to be a light for the unbelievers who frequent this board. They are not fools - they can recognize both strong and weak arguments. They will hopefully judge based on the actual content of the arguments.

Well, we agree to disagree, eh?

 

[antitox]

Jesus said he fulfilled the law. That means he brought forth it's full intent. He did not contradict the law. And neither did he oppose it.

[If this is so, does that mean the law is still in effect? - are people still to be put to death for blasphemy? Please explain.

In essence it is, but Christians are not under the law.

(Rom 6:14) "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under the law but under grace."

But as I stated before (and quoted the scriptures), the law is holy, just and good; because it agrees with God and His nature. Therefore, the law states the will of God, but it was designed to be a custodian until Christ came. But since we are under grace, we do not live under the law. So today, we have the OT showing us in the form of law the will of God. Most people do not understand the spirit of the law, and that's what I'm getting at here. That's why people write off the OT in favor of the NT; because they don't understand that the NT is the OT revealed.

Besides, just as Jesus "went one step further" in declaring that thinking adulterous thoughts was just as bad as committing adultery, how do we know that Jesus was not "bringing forth the full intent of the law" by extending the prohibition against revenge to a prohibition against self-defence.

Well first of all, adultery issue is not applicable to this because that it is simply showing us that the matter is taken down to the heart where it originates. Jesus did that in alot of his statements, but that isn't describing civil law or civil regulations allowing man the freedom to defend himself. For example, Texas law allows the right to retaliate if attacked with equal force or reasonable force.
Secondly, Jesus never said anything implying that the law was wrong. Everything he said was in agreement with the heart of the law.

If you take the position that God is telling us anything different, then you would have to say that Jesus is declaring the OT law and judgments as wrong and against God's will. God does not contradict Himself. He does not change. God did not change His divine nature from covenant to covenant.

If we kill an enemy in self-defence, we take away any chance they might have to come to repentence. How can killing, even in self-defence be construed as an act of love?

Love must do justice to the masses. If it favors one person, yet robs everyone else in some way, it become more unjust than what was done at the start.
God ordained execution because if you do not deal with the evil, the evil will propagate and destroy. Don't you watch the news? The murderer is freed and kills somone else again. I believe Steely Dan once said, "You go back, Jack, and do it again, ....we'll turn em round and round...?" Steely may not be gospel, but there's some truth to that.

This is so easy to understand and so plain, it amazes me that some on this board can't get it.

I am perfectly happy to let the quality of my arguments speak for themselves. One of our goals here (I presume) is to be a light for the unbelievers who frequent this board. They are not fools - they can recognize both strong and weak arguments. They will hopefully judge based on the actual content of the arguments.

Well, we agree to disagree, eh?

 

[Quath]

I am perfectly happy to let the quality of my arguments speak for themselves. One of our goals here (I presume) is to be a light for the unbelievers who frequent this board. They are not fools (unless BB corrects me on this) - they can recognize both strong and weak arguments. They will hopefully judge based on the actual content of the arguments.

As an unbeliever, I have to agree. I follow what Drew says because I see that he is a very rational person that will not take the easy way out of a dilemma. So the way the works through an argument is very instructive and enlightening.

I want to toss out a couple of things. So far I tend to agree with Drew on this. "Do not resist an evil person." Seems to be self explanatory and putting it in context seems to be a game to try to weaken this so people do not have to follow it. I think if Jesus were teaching against revenge, he would say something like "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, but I say do not seek revenge." He does seem to go more general instead of specific at this point.

When he orders people to buy swords, it seems that he does support self defense.

When he talks about coming back with a sword, it seems that he supports that war, but it does not imply that he supports all wars or wars in general.

Quath

 

[Solo]

I am perfectly happy to let the quality of my arguments speak for themselves. One of our goals here (I presume) is to be a light for the unbelievers who frequent this board. They are not fools (unless BB corrects me on this) - they can recognize both strong and weak arguments. They will hopefully judge based on the actual content of the arguments.

As an unbeliever, I have to agree. I follow what Drew says because I see that he is a very rational person that will not take the easy way out of a dilemma. So the way the works through an argument is very instructive and enlightening.

I want to toss out a couple of things. So far I tend to agree with Drew on this. "Do not resist an evil person." Seems to be self explanatory and putting it in context seems to be a game to try to weaken this so people do not have to follow it. I think if Jesus were teaching against revenge, he would say something like "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, but I say do not seek revenge." He does seem to go more general instead of specific at this point.

When he orders people to buy swords, it seems that he does support self defense.

When he talks about coming back with a sword, it seems that he supports that war, but it does not imply that he supports all wars or wars in general.

Quath

Quath,
Jesus was speaking about revenge, and he did teach it exactly how you described by using the eye for an eye example. That is why when Jesus says not to resist evil, meaning revenge, he says it in just this way.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 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 5:38-39

Perhaps you have agreed with me unknowingly. :wink:
Solo

 

[peace4all]

fromt eh way I have interpreted the bible, I took this as "if someone is being rude, cruel or whatever, yet it is not harming you, then let them do it. Just as he saw the people of (i cant rememebr the name of the town) and he knew that they did not want his help, so he left them to dwell as they wished.

Geez I might have to re-read the ot and the nt...

btw


^^

hamurabis code

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.

500 years before the 10 commandments..

Jesus wasnt the only one speaking of revenge.