Can a Christian defend himself OR others? (Defensive killing)

[SteveIndy]

Sure, Jesus says to love Him more than family, but Jesus does expect us to apply our God-given intelligence and consider context(s) in the actual statements (or parables) He gives to us. Not everything Jesus said is to be taken in a woodenly literal fashion. To do so can distort the meaning of some things He said, such as when Jesus said to 'hate' your mother and father, etc., etc.

Jesus said the simple and concise command, "Resist not an evil person." Where are we given the liberty to interpret that as it is alright to kill our enemy under certain circumstances that we deem necessary or unavoidable? The God given intelligence you mention is a dangerous thing. That intelligence has been corrupted and cannot be trusted.

 

[Historical Christianity]

Jesus said the simple and concise command, "Resist not an evil person." Where are we given the liberty to interpret that as it is alright to kill our enemy under certain circumstances that we deem necessary or unavoidable? The God given intelligence you mention is a dangerous thing. That intelligence has been corrupted and cannot be trusted.

It's concise and simple only when read in context. Eye for an eye was a limitation on escalation. This paragraph and others extend that principle. You're entitled to revenge (It's codified in Torah), but you don't have to take it. It's a step toward improvement in social morality, not a requirement to be a doormat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus said the simple and concise command, "Resist not an evil person." Where are we given the liberty to interpret that as it is alright to kill our enemy under certain circumstances that we deem necessary or unavoidable? The God given intelligence you mention is a dangerous thing. That intelligence has been corrupted and cannot be trusted.

If our intelligence has been corrupted and cannot be trusted, then it can't be trusted to discern between a parabolic implication such as is found in "hating" your parents, or family....and a statement where He says "resist not."

 

[devin553344]

I believe people have the right to stop sin, if their dominion of power allows them to do so.

 

[Historical Christianity]

If our intelligence has been corrupted and cannot be trusted, then it can't be trusted to discern between a parabolic implication such as is found in "hating" your parents, or family....and a statement where He says "resist not."

The premise is false. Your brain is your only tool for discernment. What's the point of reading any literature if you won't bother to understand it? Aside from a technical journal and sometimes a newspaper, the reader always bears the responsibility for recognizing and properly interpreting the literary styles of any author.

 

[SteveIndy]

Huh? That's what those words and phrases meant to their authors and their audiences.

Then why did Christ rebuke Peter for defending Him? Why did Christ live the life of non-resistance? Why did His disciples copy that lifestyle and give up all weapons of self-defense? Why did the primitive Christians, those closest to the Apostles and Christ, understand those words to mean non-resistance? Those words that you destroy with your intellect mean what they say they mean, and it is impossible for you to prove from the NT otherwise. Jesus was a Lamb and His true followers are likewise lambs, and not wolves like you suppose who follow the Lamb in word only and not in deed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The premise is false. Your brain is your only tool for discernment. What's the point of reading any literature if you won't bother to understand it? Aside from a technical journal and sometimes a newspaper, the reader always bears the responsibility for recognizing and properly interpreting the literary styles of any author.

HC, you're coming into the middle of the conversation....I'm not saying that the mind can't generally be trusted. Please read the post (or two) to which I was responding (which was to SteveIndy, by the way). Then you'll have the context of our 'debate.' Thanks.

 

[Historical Christianity]

I believe people have the right to stop sin, if their dominion of power allows them to do so.

Society, not individuals, bears the responsibility for enforcing its moral code. Within that, it's the range of authority, not power. I can do it within my family, with employees over whom I have authority, and so on. I can do it within my city or state only of that city or state has authorized (deputized) me to do so by certifying me as an officer of the law.

General authority is limited, with some exceptions like citizen's arrest and intervention in a violent personal crime. We specifically rejected vigilante violence. That's why behavior of the KKK is so heinous. Law is unequivocal that self-defense is always authorized. The only question is whether self-defense is fact or excuse.

 

[Historical Christianity]

Then why did Christ rebuke Peter for defending Him? Why did Christ live the life of non-resistance? Why did His disciples copy that lifestyle and give up all weapons of self-defense? Why did the primitive Christians, those closest to the Apostles and Christ, understand those words to mean non-resistance? Those words that you destroy with your intellect mean what they say they mean, and it is impossible for you to prove from the NT otherwise. Jesus was a Lamb and His true followers are likewise lambs, and not wolves like you suppose who follow the Lamb in word only and not in deed.

Jesus himself gave the answer. According to John, it would interfere with his destiny. His role on earth was as a sage of Second Temple Judaism. That didn't involve violence. But if you thought Jesus was a Zealot, you could find plenty in the gospels to support your view. In only one instance were disciples instructed not to take weapons. That instruction would be pointless unless they normally carried them. Most early Christians avoided confrontation because they were a tiny minority, hated because they were atheists. That is, they refused to offer the sacrifices to the gods.

 

[SteveIndy]

If our intelligence has been corrupted and cannot be trusted, then it can't be trusted to discern between a parabolic implication such as is found in "hating" your parents, or family....and a statement where He says "resist not."

God's ways are not man's ways. Inside the Garden Adam and Eve's minds were not encumbered with mental corruption as we are today. Their thoughts were simple, pure, and correct. They were not stumped by intellectual gymnastic. They never had to search for the answers to tough questions, Google to get the ideas of men, run it by the pastor, or sleep on it, They knew the answers intuitively. It was only after the Fall and outside the Garden the indecision and confusion set in. So, what is the answer to this dilemma? Inside the Garden God said that they could eat anything except the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All intelligence inside the Garden was good. Outside the Garden we are told not to trust our intelligence, that our hearts are completely corrupt, that the whole world lies in darkness, and that the Devil is the deceiver of the WHOLE world. Mankind has found himself in the deep dark woods, lost, with no way out. God has sent us a lifeline called the Holy Bible and tells us to hold onto it tightly, do what it says, even when it doesn't make sense to our intellect and the flesh. Those who think they can reason their way into Heaven and out of the deep dark woods have sided with the Devil and will be lost. Non-resistance does not make sense to the flesh or reason, but it is the truth and it is the light we are to follow. Did not Christ say, "Pick up your cross and follow Me"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God's ways are not man's ways. Inside the Garden Adam and Eve's minds were not encumbered with mental corruption as we are today. Their thoughts were simple, pure, and correct. They were not stumped by intellectual gymnastic. They never had to search for the answers to tough questions, Google to get the ideas of men, run it by the pastor, or sleep on it, They knew the answers intuitively. It was only after the Fall and outside the Garden the indecision and confusion set in. So, what is the answer to this dilemma? Inside the Garden God said that they could eat anything except the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All intelligence inside the Garden was good. Outside the Garden we are told not to trust our intelligence, that our hearts are completely corrupt, that the whole world lies in darkness, and that the Devil is the deceiver of the WHOLE world. Mankind has found himself in the deep dark woods, lost, with no way out. God has sent us a lifeline called the Holy Bible and tells us to hold onto it tightly, do what it says, even when it doesn't make sense to our intellect and the flesh. Those who think they can reason their way into Heaven and out of the deep dark woods have sided with the Devil and will be lost. Non-resistance does not make sense to the flesh or reason, but it is the truth and it is the light we are to follow. Did not Christ say, "Pick up your cross and follow Me"?

Well...that's one way of looking at it, but there are a whole bunch of philosophical and psychological issues that you've now brought into the debate with what you've written above.

I think at this point we may just have to agree to disagree, Steve.

 

[SteveIndy]

Jesus himself gave the answer. According to John, it would interfere with his destiny. His role on earth was as a sage of Second Temple Judaism. That didn't involve violence. But if you thought Jesus was a Zealot, you could find plenty in the gospels to support your view. In only one instance were disciples instructed not to take weapons. That instruction would be pointless unless they normally carried them. Most early Christians avoided confrontation because they were a tiny minority, hated because they were atheists. That is, they refused to offer the sacrifices to the gods.

I don't know what cult textbook you are following, nothing would interfere with the destiny of Jesus, it was prophesied and therefore impossible not to be fulfilled. He was not the "Sage of the second temple Judaism" He was and is the Lord of all creation who came and lived as a man and died to forgive our sins and provide a way out of this death. You are wrong, in only one instance were the disciples instructed to take weapons and that was to fulfill prophecy and after Peter's use of that weapon and being rebuked we never again hear of a weapon of any kind being use for any purpose. Yes, the primitive Christians did avoid confrontation, as we all should, but not because they were a tiny minority, it was because they were being obedient to the Gospel. Yes, they were considered atheist according to the Romans but history is full of the stories of the faithful witnesses who never considered their lives as their most precious possessions: to die in Christ was the most valuable thing they could do, and they did just that.

 

[Historical Christianity]

I don't know what cult textbook you are following, nothing would interfere with the destiny of Jesus, it was prophesied and therefore impossible not to be fulfilled.

I was following the gospel text itself. That's the reason Jesus gave to Peter.

The gospels are among the latest books in the NT. That weapon mention was at the very end of the life of Jesus. Look at NT usage of sword, used generically for a weapon. Few early Christians (except perhaps Polycarp) chose martyrdom. The Myth of Persecution - Wikipedia

 

[Historical Christianity]

HC, you're coming into the middle of the conversation....I'm not saying that the mind can't generally be trusted. Please read the post (or two) to which I was responding (which was to SteveIndy, by the way). Then you'll have the context of our 'debate.' Thanks.

I thought my comments were in context, though I admit I'm still learning XenForo, the tool used to run this site.

 

[SteveIndy]

It's concise and simple only when read in context. Eye for an eye was a limitation on escalation. This paragraph and others extend that principle. You're entitled to revenge (It's codified in Torah), but you don't have to take it. It's a step toward improvement in social morality, not a requirement to be a doormat.

You are not entitled to revenge because the OT has been abrogated by the NT. In Matthew 5 Jesus says about 5 or 6 times, You have heard it said . . . But I say . . ." and with these words He has re-written the contract. Read Hebrews 8:7 "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." And, also 9:16-17 "In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." You will not be able to use that old contract to justify your deeds before the Judge of all creation because it has been overridden. Christ was no doormat. Good luck in front of the Judge.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought my comments were in context, though I admit I'm still learning XenForo, the tool used to run this site.

HC, I don't think you have to know XenForo to know that we can many times discern the meaning of various texts in the Bible using our God-given intelligence (which Steve said is a "dangerous thing").

Granted, we can't discern the meaning of all the biblical text, but we can be aware of our reading and notice that there may be contexts and intertextual considerations to account for.

 

[Historical Christianity]

2PV (is this how people refer to other commenters here?), I was referring to the software used to run this website.

We are unlikely to understand the meaning of any text unless we take the trouble to learn what the phrases meant at the time of writing. Or if we ignore context. Or cultural context.

 

[expos4ever]

I was following the gospel text itself. That's the reason Jesus gave to Peter.

I am not sure what your basic point is; however, I suspect you may be making the argument that Jesus's rejection of violence had a very special "one-time" goal: to ensure He went to the cross. On this line of reasoning, Jesus is not really opposed to the use of violent force for defensive reasons in the general case. However, in the very special circumstances of his need to go to the Cross, He instructs His followers to not use force in his defence.

There is a big problem with that however. When Jesus faced off with Pilate He gave a reason why His (Jesus's) followers were not using force to rescue Him:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

Is Jesus saying that His followers are not fighting to rescue Him because that might interfere with His destiny at the Cross?

No. Jesus is quite clear: it is in the nature of being a citizen of the in-breaking Kingdom that force is rejected. And that, of course, is a universal principle that applies to all Christians in all times.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2PV (is this how people refer to other commenters here?), I was referring to the software used to run this website.

We are unlikely to understand the meaning of any text unless we take the trouble to learn what the phrases meant at the time of writing. Or if we ignore context. Or cultural context.

I agree with that. We need to understand the meaning of a text when it was written, as well as try to understand how it ties in with the intertextual contexts of the rest of Scripture. Otherwise, we do to Scripture the same thing Satan does with it--hijacks it by trying to place the meaning in an ultra-literal straight-jacket.

 

[Historical Christianity]

"My kingdom is not of this world." -- That's an explanation from the author of John. The author of Matthew expressed a view that could be considered more pacifist.

When I was drafted, I took a day off work to see if I could find a biblical justification for pacifism. I could not. In the NT, the soldier was too often used as a positive role model. There was never any clear instruction or teaching for it. The subject was never even explicitly discussed.