Turning the cheek isn't non-violent resistance, it's non-resistance. Non-violent resistance would be running away. That and his precise words were "resist not evil". It would apply to non-violent as well as violent resistance. Jesus didn't offer non-violent resistance when it was his turn to give himself up to die. The message isn't one of pacifism, but rather of radical submission to authority. If Roman soldier makes you carry his bags a mile, carry them two miles.
Ah, I gotcha now. It is tricky wording, but I see your point. It is true. Jesus was teaching non-resistance. But this teaching by Jesus still supports Nonviolence, though.
But I believe the New Testament does teach non-violent resistance elsewhere. The saints had helped the newly converted Paul to escape the city from the Jews by way of lowering him in a basket (Acts 9:25). Peter was imprisoned by Herod and then was later delivered by an angel (Acts 12:11). In other words, Peter non-violently resisted against staying captured by Herod by cooperating with the angel so as to escape. In fact, Jesus says this to His disciples,
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another..." (Matthew 10:23).
Translation: Use non-violent resistance (or run away to another town) when others persecute you in spreading the gospel.
SoldierOfTheKing said:
But what about justice in a given situation? Should we stand by as we watch our family or friends or others get hurt? No. We can trust in God and pray to Him and act in a non-violent way so as to protect them.
I never suggested otherwise. It would be only natural to want to protect the people we love (like our family). But of course this would have to be done in a non-violent way (Whereby you are not seeking the other person who is attacking any kind of harm).
SoldierOfTheKing said:
If I shoot off a whole magazine full of rounds at a crowded shopping mall, but don't actually hit anyone, would you classify that as a non-violent act?
No. It would be considered a violent act if a person shoots a gun in a mall because they showed aggression towards innocent people by shooting a firearm within a public place with no good reason to do so. The people in the mall would be scared by such a thing. This person would also would be damaging the building and they could have potentially hit somebody without their intention in doing so. If the police caught this person for doing such a thing, the police would see it as a violent act of aggression (even if the shooter did not intend harm). They would also want to know WHY this person was firing off a weapon that could have hurt somebody, too. If the shooter could not give the police a good reason, they would probably have their mental health checked (So as to eliminate this shooter in being a potential threat to society).
Jesus's situation was different. He was not firing a weapon that was really lethal into a crowd. If He was shooting flaming arrows at people, the people would take this as some form of an attack. They could have thought that somebody could have potentially died in such an attack and they could have arrested Him. So while Jesus did appear violent and acted aggressively by causing damage and by using a whip, none of these acts of aggression were life threatening (or none of them could be mistaken as a life threatening attack as what is normally employed within a normal battle). Hence, which is the reason why Jesus did not violate the code of Non-Violence in which He and His followers taught.