I have no idea if the Christ would do the same, but by God I would!!
2 Likes
Dave, who is advocating that you do nothing? Jesus was talking about physical resistance.
I knew a woman whom a man was about to rape. She offered no physical resistance, but she didnāt do nothing! She began to speak to him about the love of Jesus and what He meant to her. The man turned around and walked away.
What keeps happening in response to my case for the meaning of Jesusā words, is asking if such implications fit my own human instincts (or even if Jesus would live up to that standard). For as MM consistently puts it, what Jesus meant or would do is beside the point, as to what he āby Godā would do (thatās coherent and fair).
But none of such passionate appeals are relevant to addressing my academic Bible backgroundās curiosity as to what Jesusā language probably connoted in itsā historical context. Only engaging the content of that would help me rethink my impression of that.
Ok fair enough. I donāt know where Don will come down on this. I of course applaud all efforts to understand what Jesus was about and what it means for us.
Fair enough. I understand.
And thatās the rub right there IMO. Jesusā so-called āsermon on the mountā was NOT him articulating timeless principles for time immemorial, BUT rather, him speaking to the heart attitude of his own people, that if harkened to would work better for their preservation under the occupying Roman forcesā¦ that as opposed to what had become pretty much standard fair with the insurgent Zealots or Sicarii and Co. where running a Roman though with their dagger was viewed as true and effective patriotism.
Now IF one wants to imbibe of Jesusā words from that particular context (as one personally understand them) there is nothing wrong with that at allā¦ BUT Jesusā words from that given context have NOTHING to do with what might constitute a so-called ātrue Christianā ā Jesus wasnāt a Christian he was a Jew, as was his audience, i.e., historical context.
1 Like
[quote=ādavo, post:46, topic:14483, full:trueā]
I doubt agreeing with this leads to an either/or about whether anything Jesus taught or what portion is still relevant to his followers today. While I agree Jesusā words should be understood in light of their context, my assumption is that Jesusā addressing of that audience was influenced by his sense of Godās values and nature, and that speaking to their dayās āheart attitudeā can be illuminating for issues of my own heart and life.
Indeed, my sense is that first century followers collated the words in the sermon on the mount, not just for readersā historical appreciation of the past, but as a bit of an instruction manual for Jew and Gentile believers that were flooding into the church and could benefit from such a resource. Of course, our differences on the nature of that dayās movement, on dating NT books, etc parallels some differing instincts on how to interpret and how to apply the Gospel accountsā relevance in a later day.
Iām not sure if Jesus taught pacifism at all costs, Jesus spoke about slaps on the face, not deadly violence, Jesus didnāt say you have to get you slaughtered by thugs, the Old Testament approves even deadly self defence, so self defence cannot be generally wrong.
Also it is different if you do not fight in a war where your enemy are mere soldiers who do not harm on their own intent or if you have to deal with criminals that would kill you for no reason.
For the record, hereās the Got Questions take!
I think there last paragraph, is extremely important!
In short, personal pacifism should be the goal, to a large degree, of every follower of Christ. We are called to live in peace, as much as we are able to do so (Romans 1:18; Hebrews 12:14). We should be willing to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), lend freely (Luke 6:30), and even be cheated if it means not dishonoring the name of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:7). When peace is an option, we should pursue it as far as it will go. But when the lives and liberties of others are threatened, a higher law draws us to their defense (Proverbs 24:11ā12; John 15:3). When a nation needs to defend itself from those who would destroy its peace, true peacemakers join forces to protect it.
1 Like
That is a good paragraph. The āhigher lawā strikes me particularly, because Paidion has himself stated that he believes in moral hierarchy. I am confounded why he places this command above all others, as the pinacle of human morality.
If the greatest commandment toward others is to love them, how can the act of not defending them be called love? Love does no harm, so by omission of duty, one is not acting in love when they do not defend their neighbor with physical force, if necessary.
Paidion, your example of āI once knew a womenā¦ā Is really disturbing to me. It reaks of cult like abuse and victim blaming. I canāt even believe you would hold such a position, as to me it is immoral to the core.
1 Like
I said āhyperboleā not āfigurative speechā & that hyperbole is used to emphasize a point which i think is what Paul brought out āto the extent possibleā live in peace. Also i was not referring to all of Jesus commands.
2 Likes
Exactly!
I find your premise unjustified. The OT approves slaughtering babies, selling oneās daughter into slavery, polygamy, assassinating the unclean, those who did any work on Saturdays, an adultereress, disobedient children, etc. And Jesusā central scandal to OT experts was that he violated plain OT teachings and would quote it, and then say, āBut I say (differently).ā
Jesusā outlook should be determined based on what themes he spells out, not by what the OT says.
1 Like
Iām not seeing anything āhyperbolicā in Paulās words about seeking peace in our relationships with others. It just appears to be a realistic statement that such efforts will not always result in reconciliation, since it takes both sides. So arguing that Paul is implying that where our efforts at reconciliation fails, deadly force is then justified, seems far fetched.
I see no evidence that he is thinking anything but that we must accept living in an imperfect world where our best efforts will not now produce the reconciliation we seek (and trust Godās promise that all things will one day be reconciled under him as in Colossians 1).
If John 15:3 shows that Jesus asserts deadly force is a higher law taking precedence when liberties are threatened, itās very relevant to Jesusā view on this. But Iām lost, how does it show that?
I was arguing Jesus used hyperbole in turning the other cheek etc because Paul qualified Jesus statement by saying āto the extent possible.ā
Thanks!, I see no evidence that Paul is even commenting on Jesusā words (which I agree is a hyperbolic example; even Jesus didnāt turn his cheek when struck at his trial). Itās hyperbolic because the only response to evil is not to literally turn the cheek, but sometimes to directly challenge evil, as Jesus often did. But reading in that Jesus or Paul is thus saying that deadly force is the remedy they intend to be approving when accepting perverse treatment doesnāt bring repentance strikes me as quite eisegetic.
The question was originally concerning this:
Tolstoi took that all the way - though Iām not sure that he had to actually follow through on it - was he ever in the extreme situation of protecting an innocent from evil - murderous evil? I donāt know.
The rest of us want to mitigate that verse to one extent or the other, by using euphemisms - āpervertā instead of āevilā - āconfrontā instead of ādo not resistā - āwe donāt know what Jesus would do in such a situation (Mary being raped)ā instead of āwe really donāt know if Jesus meant what he said or notā - etc.
And all of us āwimp outā - if thatās what it is - when it comes to what we would really do.
Why? Because we are sinners who hate what Jesus said; or because we are men who share with mankind the empathy to protect innocence from evil - with proportionate response; or because we are not at all certain what Jesus meant, when and to whom?
Yay for those that eschew violence in any form - which is the ideal - we rest easy, because there are people protecting us. We can have ideals, because we have a safe space to have them. Life is cheap and fragile in this world; to protect it is to value it.
1 Like
Iām not sure about that chapter and verse, myself. But they (AKA Got Questions) quote (Proverbs 24:11ā12; John 15:3 ). Proverbs is a bit, clearer to me.
But they do have a couple, of other related Q and A:
Itās interesting that the Got Questions sentiments are also found in the Kung Fu TV series. Where Caine always reflects on peace firstā¦But is an expert in Kung Fu. Perhaps he should have served the gunman and his āboysā, a cup of tea instead - in this video! 
Amen it is to who it is 