Is non-resistance biblical?

[Zebra1552]

Yes and Christ tells us to behave in a different manner. Instead of taking eye for eye or life for life we are supposed to turn the other cheek and not resist evil.

I already addressed that. It's talking about annoying people, not evil people.

If someone steals our shirt we give them our cloak as well. This isn't simply limited to a person insulting you. A person might even try to kill you or take your eye and you are not to do the same back to them.

Really? Prove it.

This isn't easy and I understand why people would look for an out. It's certainly a "hard saying" of Jesus. Who can be that perfect?

Prove that this is what Jesus was talking about. For goodness sake, you expect me to believe you just because you say it's so. Do you honestly expect me to be that naive?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I already addressed that. It's talking about annoying people, not evil people.

Why is it taught as something to do instead of eye for eye , tooth for tooth, if it isn't applicable in similar circumstances. A lost eye can be rather violent. Certainly more than a simple insult.

Really? Prove it.

"If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also." Luke 6:29

"If a person demands your coat give them your shirt as well." What does that mean to you? If a person pulled a gun on you and said "give me your coat" would that be an example of a person demanding your coat? How would you respond if you were trying to do what this verse is asking?

Prove that this is what Jesus was talking about.

I'm trying to explain why I think this is the case.

Do you honestly expect me to be that naive?

I don't consider my understanding to be naive so I wouldn't consider agreement with it to be a sign of naivety.

 

[Zebra1552]

Why is it taught as something to do instead of eye for eye , tooth for tooth, if it isn't applicable in similar circumstances. A lost eye can be rather violent. Certainly more than a simple insult.

That doesn't address what I said.

"If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also." Luke 6:29

"If a person demands your coat give them your shirt as well." What does that mean to you? If a person pulled a gun on you and said "give me your coat" would that be an example of a person demanding your coat? How would you respond if you were trying to do what this verse is asking?

That has nothing to do with what I asked. You stated:

This isn't simply limited to a person insulting you. A person might even try to kill you or take your eye and you are not to do the same back to them.

Prove this.

I'm trying to explain why I think this is the case.

Then explain it without assuming I'll just believe whatever you tell me.

 

[MasterpieceMesias]

I've seen people try to strain logic to find a loophole in that. Like- "Hey, I'm not resisting him I'm just killing him!" Or maybe, " I'll turn the other cheek after he is dead."

that one made me lol for like 3 minutes for some reason. . . but I digress

yeah what I think Christ meant when He says these things is basically not to be trigger-happy idiots. We see countless times in the Old Testament God's chosen army going around pillaging and destroying exceedingly wicked nations for His purpose and will. Of course if someone points a gun at your mother, per say, then do you really think God would tell you to just go ahead and let them kill her??

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Then explain it without assuming I'll just believe whatever you tell me

I'm not assuming anything in that regard. I'm having a discussion on the topic of the thread like everyone else.

That has nothing to do with what I asked. You stated:

You quoted a part of my post that discussed the coat thing. Under that you said "prove it". I then gave the Bible verse I was referencing in the post in order to supply some context for my belief. Then I asked you some questions about it. The back and forth of question and answer I was looking for was intended to help better explain things.

Are you asking specifically why I believe the attitude of non-resistance and turning the other cheek applies to situations beyond simple insults? If so I already gave a reason. If you find it unconvincing that's up to you and I really have no need to "prove" it to you. You shared your view and I shared mine. We both presented about the same amount of supporting evidence.

 

[Zebra1552]

I'm not assuming anything in that regard. I'm having a discussion on the topic of the thread like everyone else.

You quoted a part of my post that discussed the coat thing. Under that you said "prove it".

I quoted three sentences and I expected you to address all three. You addressed one.

I then gave the Bible verse I was referencing in the post in order to supply some context for my belief. Then I asked you some questions about it. The back and forth of question and answer I was looking for was intended to help better explain things.

I have nothing to explain. I deny that your verse is about non-resistance and I state that it is about retaliation and I have supported this with more than adequate reasoning. Until you can see fit to answer my questions, I don't see why I should answer yours. I asked first.

Are you asking specifically why I believe the attitude of non-resistance and turning the other cheek applies to situations beyond simple insults?

No. I'm asking you to prove that the verse is talking about nonresistance rather than nonretaliation.

If so I already gave a reason. If you find it unconvincing that's up to you and I really have no need to "prove" it to you. You shared your view and I shared mine. We both presented about the same amount of supporting evidence.

Oh? Henry patently dismisses the idea that the passage is referring to nonresistance:

1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.
Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these include others.
(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,” which is not only a hurt, but an affront and indignity (2Co_11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse thee, “turn to him the other cheek;” that is, “instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek,” Mic_5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us to the like affront another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other cheek, yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his providence to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the forgiving of one injury may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on another; some will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more exasperated, Pro_25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who will reward us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure; and though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall be put upon the score of suffering for Christ.

I have now provided evidence from the Greek, a reputable commentary, and information that is well known about that culture as it pertains to that verse. You have cited said verse and claimed it is talking about nonresistance. Yet you say we've presented the same about of evidence? Check again.

 

[theFijian]

Romans 13:4 - For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Paul states here that God has authorised the use of violence (the sword) in the correct context, ie. the civil authorities, however the OP failed to distinguish or acknowledge the different contexts of the Christian individual and civil authorities. If Christians are to obey the law then it follows that they are to also uphold the law, therefore to uphold the law Christians may use violence if it is absolutely neccesary. Obviously it would be preferrable if it is a last resort.

 

[brightmorningstar]

It is very difficult to defend violence for Christianty. Christ did not use violence and healed the man whose ear one of His followers cut off in self defense.
However Christ also commended the faith of the centurion, a soldier; soldiers are paid to kill. The faith of the centurion was not in his soldiering, but in the healing power of Christ, but Christ recognised he was under orders.
I think the point is that violence is wrong even in self defense, evil cannot be defeated by wrong, Christ has set the way and but Satan is out to destroy it, creates the agression and looks to shift the blame from the agression to the self defense.

 

[theFijian]

It is very difficult to defend violence for Christianty. Christ did not use violence and healed the man whose ear one of His followers cut off in self defense.

Matthew 21:12: was this a violent or non-violent act of Christ?

However Christ also commended the faith of the centurion, a soldier; soldiers are paid to kill. The faith of the centurion was not in his soldiering, but in the healing power of Christ, but Christ recognised he was under orders.
I think the point is that violence is wrong even in self defense, evil cannot be defeated by wrong, Christ has set the way and but Satan is out to destroy it, creates the agression and looks to shift the blame from the agression to the self defense.

You have to show that the use of force is wrong by definition in all contexts, which I don't think you have. Matthew 21:12 and Romans 13:4 give us different contexts in which the use of force or violence is legitimate.

 

[brightmorningstar]

theFijian,

I think you are right one has to consider these contexts and yes both do involve violence by definition.

What I am trying to do is give my personal opinion on this. My feeling is the context of the world and the Kingdom. In the Kingdom there is no need for violence, God has defeated death, and Christ demonstrated this, but in the world there is still supposed to be order and God has ordained government for that purpose.
Nonetheless what concerns me is that most of the NT apostles were killed, they didnt form militia to protect and conquer like for example Mohammed did with Islam.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I have nothing to explain. I deny that your verse is about non-resistance and I state that it is about retaliation

Maybe I was misunderstanding the point you were making then. If you think the verse prohibits retaliating with violence when another person commits violence against you then I'm actually in agreement with you.

No. I'm asking you to prove that the verse is talking about nonresistance rather than nonretaliation

The part about the coat or the part that says "resist not evil" ?

I have now provided evidence from the Greek, a reputable commentary

The first part makes sense but then it gives a loophole for self defense that isn't in the text itself and is an undefended assertion on their part. It's given almost in the style of "everyone knows this of course." Using violence to defend yourself is an attempt to resist evil, it isn't turning the other cheek, and it is an example of retaliation. This is true according to the standard meanings of all those terms and phrases (retaliation, turning the other cheek, etc..).

 

[theFijian]

theFijian,

I think you are right one has to consider these contexts and yes both do involve violence by definition.

What I am trying to do is give my personal opinion on this. My feeling is the context of the world and the Kingdom. In the Kingdom there is no need for violence, God has defeated death, and Christ demonstrated this, but in the world there is still supposed to be order and God has ordained government for that purpose.

I understand and have sympathy with opinion, however I believe that in certain contexts non-violence can actually be worse for the Kingdom. Consider the situation where unjust or illegitimate violence is being done to others while Christians are in a position to prevent this violence from occurring but yet do nothing?

What if the Good Samaritan had happened across the man on the road to Damascus while he was in the process of being attacked? Would he have been his neighbour if he stood aside and watched while the attack took place and waited for it to end before coming to the man's assistance?

Nonetheless what concerns me is that most of the NT apostles were killed, they didnt form militia to protect and conquer like for example Mohammed did with Islam.

I think that's something quite different and on the whole would be an illegitimate use of violence.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Yes good point I was thinking of the good samaritan passage when I posted. The trouble is when they arrested Jesus and the ear was cut off Jesus said those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and He then went to be crucified and was innocent.

Can't fully disagree with you though, wouldnt want to divide on this issue.

 

[Zebra1552]

Maybe I was misunderstanding the point you were making then. If you think the verse prohibits retaliating with violence when another person commits violence against you then I'm actually in agreement with you.

ANY retaliation, violence or otherwise, is off limits. Self defense, as Henry details in his commentary, is allowed, and self defense is directly against non-resistance.

The part about the coat or the part that says "resist not evil" ?

You randomly brought the stuff about the coat in, we were originally talking about Matthew 5:39.

The first part makes sense but then it gives a loophole for self defense that isn't in the text itself and is an undefended assertion on their part.

It's defended by the fact that the guy studies this stuff for a living and knows the cultural nuances- which he cites- that TELL you it's permissible.

It's given almost in the style of "everyone knows this of course." Using violence to defend yourself is an attempt to resist evil, it isn't turning the other cheek, and it is an example of retaliation.

No it's not. Turning the other cheek referred to insults. Didn't you read it?

The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7.

There's an entire list of verses there. I directly and specifically stated that the verse isn't talking about nonresistance, but about nonretaliation, and that's exactly what Henry says.

(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,” which is not only a hurt, but an affront and indignity (2Co_11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse thee, “turn to him the other cheek;” that is, “instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek,” Mic_5:1.

The point is, if it's not going to matter in a year, ignore it. Not let people beat the snot out of you because that will matter in a year.

And again you make me explain what self defense is. Self defense is a form of martial arts where the goal is to protect others or yourself while avoiding violence. The goal is to get out of the situation and diffuse it by whatever means fit the situation. Sometimes words don't cut it, and then and only then can physical defense actually get used.
The physical defense that is used is aimed at disabling or distracting an attacker, not causing them serious bodily harm. More often than not it is those that are not trained in self defense that harm their attackers.

Legally, as a black belt in Taekwondo, I must use equal or lesser force. Basically what that means is that if they are unarmed, I cannot cause lasting injury to them. No broken bones, gouged eyes, infertility, etc. If they are armed, I can use whatever means necessary to disarm them or disable them. Once they are disarmed, it immediately means I cannot cause them lasting injury again.

The goal isn't retaliation, but to escape the situation. So your equating self-defense with this non-retaliation stuff is really quite hopeless.

This is true according to the standard meanings of all those terms and phrases (retaliation, turning the other cheek, etc..).

Not true. Turning the other cheek means accepting and bearing insult without retaliating. Not laying down and dying for anyone that wishes you dead. Huge difference.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The goal isn't retaliation, but to escape the situation. So your equating self-defense with this non-retaliation stuff is really quite hopeless.

I see no contradiction with Scripture in escaping a situation in some instances. Physically restraining someone to protect another person . Putting someone in an arm bar while someone else runs away. Jumping in the path of a bullet to save another person, etc. I believe Christians are prohibited from killing people or seeking to inflict severe bodily harm on them though.

Like Tertullian one of the early Church Fathers (I'm not his biggest fan but I believe this is perfectly Scriptural)

"Christ in disarming Peter has unbelted every solider."

Legally, as a black belt in Taekwondo

I've taken martial arts for a good deal of my life as well*. If someone tried punching me I would probably (fairly instinctively) punch them back too but I don't believe that this is the ideal that Christ set. It's simply a sign that I still have some spiritual maturing to do. The ideal would be to behave more like Gandhi did when he was assaulted by a lynch mob or the peaceful protesters of the civil rights movement who wouldn't even raise a hand in defense of themselves when attacked by the hatred of the Klan. Their non-resistance has probably had a better effect on the world then all the instances of killing added together.

I tend to think the results of violent resistance to perceived evils has just added to the lump sum of evils in the world. It just creates new seeds that will be sown later:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What could Tolstoy (and Jesus) possibly have meant? Is it not our duty to resist evil? In his flash of inspiration, Tolstoy saw that, in resisting evil, we usually become the very evil we seek to destroy, perhaps worse. In resisting the evils present in communism, the United States built 30,000 nuclear weapons. In resisting the evils present in capitalism, the Soviet Union built 20,000 weapons. These actions created an evil far greater than those being resisted: the real danger that civilization will be destroyed.

Similarly, in resisting the evil of nuclear weapons, many people in the peace movement made war on President Reagan, the military, or the scientific community - all of whom had some responsibility for the mess in which we found ourselves. But, in resisting the perceived evil, these people often created their own "evil empires" whose destruction would make the world safe - not an effective way to pose the possibility that love of neighbor is the path to salvation. "
[/FONT]

* Though I've become rather weak and flabby lately lol.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]double post
[/FONT]​

 

[Zebra1552]

I see no contradiction with Scripture in escaping a situation in some instances. Physically restraining someone to protect another person . Putting someone in an arm bar while someone else runs away. Jumping in the path of a bullet to save another person, etc. I believe Christians are prohibited from killing people or seeking to inflict severe bodily harm on them though.

There is a time for war and a time for peace. Time to live, time to die, time to heal. Those words ring any bells? They came from what most consider the wisest man who ever lived. And you're telling me Scripture says we shouldn't kill if necessary? What about soldiers? Are they to just be bantha poodoo for the enemy? Your position is contradictory with what we see in Scripture. Nowhere did Christ condemn anything of the sort. Christ talked about returning insult with love rather than retaliating back. It's not loving to let people kill people or injure people.

I've taken martial arts for a good deal of my life as well*. If someone tried punching me I would probably (fairly instinctively) punch them back too but I don't believe that this is the ideal that Christ set.

If you continue to only address snippets of my post, you will be talking to a wall. I never said anything about punching back. That is not what I am taught. You just ignored everything I said about what self defense is to again argue against retaliation, which I am NOT talking about. You are talking past me, and I do not appreciate that. Address my posts, or keep it to yourself.

It's simply a sign that I still have some spiritual maturing to do. The ideal would be to behave more like Gandhi did when he was assaulted by a lynch mob or the peaceful protesters of the civil rights movement who wouldn't even raise a hand in defense of themselves when attacked by the hatred of the Klan. Their non-resistance has probably had a better effect on the world then all the instances of killing added together.

* Though I've become rather weak and flabby lately lol.

If you're going to give examples, give examples that actually apply here. We're not talking mass groups of people defending themselves or not for some social goal.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

There is a time for war and a time for peace. Time to live, time to die, time to heal. Those words ring any bells?

Yes, I believe it's from Proverbs. That is the height of mans wisdom but Christ taught us something that transcends that. That's why Christ said "you have heard" and then goes on to describe the OT law of tooth for tooth, eye for eye only to reject that and give different advice. This is why Christ spoke of divorce as something that had been allowed "due to the hardness of your hearts". It wasn't the perfect law that was revealed in all instances in the OT. It was the law that took into effect the hardness of peoples hearts, that they were not yet ready to bear it etc...

Scripture says we shouldn't kill if necessary? What about soldiers?

The earliest Christian converts among the Roman legions would refuse to fight and were often jailed and executed for this. Like one of them of them (St Martin of tours) said: " I am a solider of Christ I can not fight". They jailed him for it because he was in the Roman army. They tended to agree with the sentiment of Tertullian that "Christ in disarming Peter, has unbelted every solider." It was when Church and state married under Constantine that people started forgetting that. Started going back to the ways of the OT.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

It's not loving to let people kill people or injure people.

What are you getting at with "let people" ?

I never said anything about punching back. That is not what I am taught.

I was talking about how I would most likely respond. I have no idea what technique you would use in a similar situation.

You just ignored everything I said about what self defense is to again argue against retaliation

The use of violence in defense is a form of retaliation. The definition of retaliation is "to return like for like". If a person is shooting at you and you shoot back that would by definition be retaliation.

re·tal·i·ate (r

-t

l

-

t

)v. re·tal·i·at·ed, re·tal·i·at·ing, re·tal·i·ates
v.intr. To return like for like, especially evil for evil.

v.tr. To pay back (an injury) in kind.

 

[Zebra1552]

Yes, I believe it's from Proverbs. That is the height of mans wisdom but Christ taught us something that transcends that. That's why Christ said "you have heard" and then goes on to describe the OT law of tooth for tooth, eye for eye only to reject that and give different advice. This is why Christ spoke of divorce as something that had been allowed "due to the hardness of your hearts". It wasn't the perfect law that was revealed in all instances in the OT. It was the law that took into effect the hardness of peoples hearts, that they were not yet ready to bear it etc...

Ecclesiastes isn't OT Law, which nullifies everything you just said.

Christians are not supposed to be soldiers in the first place.

Got Scripture, or am I again just supposed to believe what everyone tells me around here?

The earliest Christian converts among the Roman legions would refuse to fight and were often jailed and executed for this. Like one of them of them (St Martin of tours) said: " I am a solider of Christ I can not fight". They jailed him for it because he was in the Roman army. They tended to agree with the sentiment of Tertullian that "Christ in disarming Peter, has unbelted every solider." It was when Church and state married under Constantine that people started forgetting that. Started going back to the ways of the OT.

Just because some Christians decide not to be soldiers does not make it prohibited for all Christians. What a bunch of early Christians did does not make for a standard all Christians follow.

What are you getting at with "let people" ?

Was it wrong to plan to assassinate Hitler? What do you think I'm getting at? There are evil people in the world that enjoy killing and harming others, and sometimes they must be stopped.

I was talking about how I would most likely respond. I have no idea what technique you would use in a similar situation.

That's pretty basic. If someone's punching you, you block it and go from there. Sometimes the block is enough to show them that it's a bad idea.

The use of violence in defense is a form of retaliation.

By whose definition?

The definition of retaliation is "to return like for like". If a person is shooting at you and you shoot back that would by definition be retaliation.

Not, however, if they are trying to beat you up or kill you and you cause a few tingly nerves and run away or restrain them. You're again ignoring my point about self defense to focus on what YOU think it is.

re·tal·i·ate (r

-t

l

-

t

)v. re·tal·i·at·ed, re·tal·i·at·ing, re·tal·i·ates
v.intr. To return like for like, especially evil for evil.

v.tr. To pay back (an injury) in kind.

Thank you for supporting my point that we should not take eye for eye and tooth for tooth and demand perfect justice. I appreciate it.