Biblical command to 'turn the other cheek' doesn't mean Christians should 'tolerate tyranny'

[FireDragon76]

No one ever died from a slap. Telling you not to respond to disrespect is not the same as saying let someone kill you and don’t resist

That's true but often times people cannot tell the difference. And that's why it's a problem.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the point is that we need to appropriately qualify turn the other cheek and love your neighbor with just war theory. This is a culture war, after all.

Good point. Keep in mind just war theory holds that in order for a war to be just, it must have a reasonable likelihood of success.

Paul said, "if it be at all possible, live in peace with everyone". On the other hand, there is a history of Evangelicals itching for fights, even quixotically, perhaps as a strange kind of martyrdom (perhaps ingroup virtue signalling?)

 

[Vambram]

The Founding Fathers are not the infallible rule of faith for the Christian life.

I don't believe that I ever said that they were.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What are the options with a sword?

Jesus also stops them after they say "here are two swords" by saying "that is enough".

And we're left with two choices in how to understand this.

1) Jesus is saying two swords is sufficient, though that raises the question (and this is something St. John Chrysostom even argues in his commentary), how is a group of at least twelve people supposed to defend themselves with only two swords? If Jesus is actually saying, "You only need these two swords, that is enough" then that doesn't really make any sense given the practical matters of what Jesus is talking about and the reality which the apostles and other early disciples would have found themselves in. And, more-so, it doesn't appear that aside from Peter cutting off the soldier's ear (which Jesus rebukes him for), that a sword was ever used, even in self defense.

2) Jesus is telling them that they've missed the point, "that is enough" isn't that "that is enough swords to defend yourselves with", but means something else entirely. Because, again, as soon as a sword is used--by Peter--the act is immediately condemned. Early Christians had no trouble recognizing the meaning here, Tertullian would say "In disarming Peter Jesus unbelted every soldier" ("belt" referring to the military belt Roman soldiers wore, the sign of their military oath and office). In the story of St. Marcellus the Centurion, his conversion to Christianity involved him removing his belt and rebuking his military oath--an act which, because of its public nature, ultimately got him his martyr's crown.

If taking up the sword, even in self defense, was something Jesus instructed His followers to do, then they did a very bad job at it. Because none of them--literally none of them--did it. There is a noticeable absence of Peter, James, John, or Paul going around with a sword and defending themselves from the unruly mobs. St. Stephen, the first martyr, didn't become the first martyr because he lost in combat, but defenseless he was stoned to death by a mob.

The singular example in the entire New Testament of a Christian using a weapon is also when it was rebuked directly and explicitly by Jesus Christ. And, as noted earlier, early Christians took note of that. And for centuries refused to take up arms, even in self defense. Violence had no usefulness in the ancient Church, in the time when the Church was most vulnerable. Before there were any Christian kings, emperors; there were no Christians commanding legions to battle, no crown was adorned with a cross; the Faithful were a persecuted minority. If at anytime in the history of Christianity it would have been beneficial to carry a sword for self defense, it would have been this time. But, instead, it is in this period of Christian history that is the least violent--Christians weren't wielding swords, they were having swords wielded against them.

Perhaps that means something very important, something that has gotten lost in our tradition because we, in time, came to be comfortable with power and the use of violence as not only sometimes justifiable, but even worthy and good in its own right. Perhaps it's something we should rekindle, going forward.

Perhaps we should stop relying on the principalities and powers of this present age in making our faith compulsory to some degree or another; and instead take up the apostolic mantle of peace, trusting in the power of the Gospel to itself be enough.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DaisyDay]

No one ever died from a slap. Telling you not to respond to disrespect is not the same as saying let someone kill you and don’t resist

That would mean more if you could state where He said to resist and kill your enemies. I think He said something to the effect of whoever seeks to save his life will lose his life

Also something about whosoever gives his life for His sake shall live forever?

 

[rambot]

What are the options with a sword?

Fulfill prophesy.

 

[BPPLEE]

That would mean more if you could state where He said to resist and kill your enemies. I think He said something to the effect of whoever seeks to save his life will lose his life

Also something about whosoever gives his life for His sake shall live fo?

I think the Old Testament has ample evidence that you can defend yourself and defeat your enemies with God’s blessings.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think the Old Testament has ample evidence that you can defend yourself and defeat your enemies with God’s blessings.

True enough but shouldn’t Christians follow Christ?

 

[BPPLEE]

True enough but shouldn’t Christians follow Christ?

I do

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think the Old Testament has ample evidence that you can defend yourself and defeat your enemies with God’s blessings.

The Old Testament also speaks of sacrificing bulls and sheep, but we recognize that in Christ something new has come, something superior to what was given to Moses. According to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews if there is a New Covenant, then the Old is no longer binding.

So God allowing, and even blessing, certain violent acts in the Old Testament does not mean God will bless any of our violent acts. The Torah was, according to St. Paul, a paidagogos, a schoolmaster (a paidagogos was, literally, the slave in a household who was responsible for training, teaching, and disciplining children).

It's why we don't, historically, observe the Sabbath; but instead celebrate the Kyriake, the Lord's Day (kyriake hemeros).

It is entirely improper to appeal to the Old Testament in order to abrogate the teaching, covenant, and commandments of the New. Nor is it appropriate to appeal to the Old Testament in such a way that we should do so in order to indulge our own carnal appetites.

But, again, does God allowing and even blessing certain violent acts in the Old Testament substantiate any contemporary act of violence? How could one even defend that position? How could you or I know that any violent action we take has divine sanction behind it? Is there a prophet today declaring "Thus says YHWH" whose divinely inspired word should be adhered to? Is there a Moses or a Joshua? Is the Church ruled by Judges (e.g. the chieftains of pre-monarchic Israel)? Is there a divinely anointed monarch who rules the Church? And the answer to that is, yes--but it's Jesus. Jesus, and what does He say? He, the very Word of God Himself, says what? Does what? He rules how? He governs His Church how? His way is what way?

Note, I'm not going to argue a pure black-and-white argument that limited exercises of violence are never, or can never be, justified (at least humanly, and/or pragmatically justified). But to suggest that we can invoke the Name of Christ to sanction, bless, our own violent impulses is truly a dangerous thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I do

Can you name an example of where Christ blesses and sanctions violence for His followers?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No one ever died from a slap. Telling you not to respond to disrespect is not the same as saying let someone kill you and don’t resist

This teaching is one of the many that I struggle with. I don't think Jesus said this glibly. But then he also said if your eye offends you pluck it out. This is the man who submitted to crucifixion and told his followers to pick up and carry their own crosses. We ought not be hasty in writing off his teachings as figurative. And yet if anyone actually plucked their eye out we would consider them mentally ill.

 

[BPPLEE]

This teaching is one of the many that I struggle with. I don't think Jesus said this glibly. But then he also said if your eye offends you pluck it out. This is the man who submitted to crucifixion and told his followers to pick up and carry their own crosses. We ought not be hasty in writing off his teachings as figurative. And yet if anyone actually plucked their eye out we would consider them mentally ill.

Or cut their hands off. His point was to show that people who thought they were keeping the law really weren’t. It’s impossible. That’s why we need a savior.

 

[FireDragon76]

Or cut their hands off. His point was to show that people who thought they were keeping the law really weren’t. It’s impossible. That’s why we need a savior.

Is it impossible, or has it been found difficult, and left untried (to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton)?

 

[BPPLEE]

Is it impossible, or has it been found difficult, and left untried (to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton)?

Rom 7:19 - For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Rom 7:20 - Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Rom 7:21 - I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Rom 7:22 - For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Rom 7:23 - But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of mymind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Rom 7:24 - O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of thisdeath?

Rom 7:25 - I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind Imyself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[rambot]

I think the Old Testament has ample evidence that you can defend yourself and defeat your enemies with God’s blessings.

The OT is not instructive for christians though. It's purpose is to show how God fulfilled the promise of His son and how we can rely on Him as his children did.

The NT us clearly instructive and Jesus could not be clearer.

 

[BPPLEE]

The OT is not instructive for christians though. It's purpose is to show how God fulfilled the promise of His son and how we can rely on Him as his children did.

The NT us clearly instructive and Jesus could not be clearer.

Not be clearer about what? Letting someone beat you up or kill you and just standing there and not defending yourself? Letting someone rape your wife and not defending her? Letting someone molest your children and just forgiving them?
God also gave you a brain and he intended for you to use it. The Old Testament gives us insight into the nature of God and God has approved of defending yourself and defeating your enemies.

 

[rambot]

Not be clearer about what? Letting someone beat you up or kill you and just standing there and not defending yourself?

You literally described what happenned to Christ.

Letting someone rape your wife and not defending her? Letting someone molest your children and just forgiving them?

It's pretty simple.
Quote Christ.

You can't?

then figure out what Hes saying. Christ calls us to love our enemies. Its pretty simple...and theres a reason we always fall short. Because we are supposed to love and forgive the people you mention.
Its not asy being a true follower of christ but thats why we have jsus bood to cover us and redeem us.


But dont think we have permission to do domething we do not

The Old Testament gives us insight into the nature of God

Correct.

and God has approved of defending yourself and defeating your enemies.

Incorrect. Jesus could be very clear on that if he allowed it.

 

[BPPLEE]

You literally described what happenned to Christ.



It's pretty simple.
Quote Christ.

You can't?

then figure out what Hes saying. Christ calls us to love our enemies. Its pretty simple...and theres a reason we always fall short. Because we are supposed to love and forgive the people you mention.
Its not asy being a true follower of christ but thats why we have jsus bood to cover us and redeem us.


But dont think we have permission to do domething we do not



Correct.


Incorrect. Jesus could be very clear on that if he allowed it.

Jesus allowed that to happen because he was paying for our sins. If you are talking about being a martyr for the sake of Christ I agree with you. There were times when a crowd sought to harm Jesus but he slipped away. He didn’t allow it to happen.
Being persecuted for our religion is something we should take joy in. Allowing it for any other reason is not not biblical

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus allowed that to happen because he was paying for our sins. If you are talking about being a martyr for the sake of Christ I agree with you. There were times when a crowd sought to harm Jesus but he slipped away. He didn’t allow it to happen.
Being persecuted for our religion is something we should take joy in. Allowing it for any other reason is not not biblical

Ah, so "turn the other cheek" only applies when it earns us brownie points so we can get that sweet sweet heavenly swag.

-CryptoLutheran.