We are not to hurt anyone for any reason.

[Zecryphon]

I wrote this just a few posts back but seeing that you haven’t read it: I thought you gave up on this thread? I wonder why none of you can understand why Jesus said that’s enough? He could see that the disciples were taking him literally and he wanted to stop that kind of thinking, so he said that’s enough so they would stop that thinking. It had nothing with it having enough swords.

I don’t believe any reputable theologian would disagree with that interpretation.

I tried to explain this over and over again in this thread, but I guess people read what they want to believe.

Well, whom do you regard as a reputable theologian?

 

[2theBone]

Yet? Why even have two swords? If one is not to resist an evil person in the manner some here presume it to mean?

That's easy. If you have a man with a sword on guard duty, the cutthroats and thieves will leave you alone because they assume an armed camp.

Jesus clearly told his followers that those who live by the sword will die by the sword and he physically stopped one from using a sword.

One cannot help but conclude that Jesus was ok with having swords around when it was helpful but was against actually using them.

 

[Calminian]

That's easy. If you have a man with a sword on guard duty, the cutthroats and thieves will leave you alone because they assume an armed camp.

Jesus clearly told his followers that those who live by the sword will die by the sword and he physically stopped one from using a sword.

One cannot help but conclude that Jesus was ok with having swords around when it was helpful but was against actually using them.

So then I can assume you have a gun in clear view for potential criminals to see?

 

[Soul Searcher]

What did Jesus say when you asked him what He meant about having His disciples buy those swords? I'm sure you asked Him right, cuz that'd be the first question out of my mouth if "Jesus" ever told me I was not to harm anyone for any reason.

hmmm.. I have saw references to this come up often, and while it is true that there is a verse which says something to the effect of let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one, there is also another one which has lay down your sword for he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. The latter seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus than the former.

While I disagree with the notion presented in the op that we are not to harm anyone for any reason I also believe that he is closer to the truth of Jesus on this matter than many of those who are in disagreement.

 

[Calminian]

So then I can assume you have a gun in clear view for potential criminals to see?

But then if the criminal knows you'll never use it, won't it defeat the purpose? Do you then have to lie and say you'll use it, when you really won't?

 

[Zecryphon]

So then I can assume you have a gun in clear view for potential criminals to see?

I do. God bless Arizona as an open carry state.

 

[Calminian]

That's easy. If you have a man with a sword on guard duty, the cutthroats and thieves will leave you alone because they assume an armed camp.

Jesus clearly told his followers that those who live by the sword will die by the sword and he physically stopped one from using a sword.

One cannot help but conclude that Jesus was ok with having swords around when it was helpful but was against actually using them.

You know, when you think about it, this is actually deception. You are actually saying that Jesus wants us to have weapons but only pretend we are going to use them. IOW, were are to deceive our enemies to try to keep them from attacking. So the Jesus of the pacifist is actually promoting lying. Wow!

 

[Calminian]

And if this lie is okay, then aren't you endangering your fellow christians by arguing on a public forum letting the world know that when it comes down to it, a true bible believing christian will never pull the trigger. Shouldn't you be promoting the lie on these public forums as well?

 

[2theBone]

You know, when you think about it, this is actually deception. You are actually saying that Jesus wants us to have weapons but only pretend we are going to use them. IOW, were are to deceive our enemies to try to keep them from attacking. So the Jesus of the pacifist is actually promoting lying. Wow!

Ummmmm, he DID say that we should be innocent as doves and wise as serpents, did he not???

I must admit, since I view the Bible as a great book of stories with some excellent guidelines for behavior, but certainly NOT to be taken at all literally.......I really don't have to worry about it.

My Glock 26 is usually within easy reach.

You people who take the Bible literally are the ones who have a serious problem in this self-defense issue.

 

[Zecryphon]

Ummmmm, he DID say that we should be innocent as doves and wise as serpents, did he not???

I must admit, since I view the Bible as a great book of stories with some excellent guidelines for behavior, but certainly NOT to be taken at all literally.......I really don't have to worry about it.

My Glock 26 is usually within easy reach.

You people who take the Bible literally are the ones who have a serious problem in this self-defense issue.

I take the Bible as written and have no problem with owning and if necessary using a Glock 23.

 

[2theBone]

Well, good for you.

I would be a pacifist if I took the Bible literally.

Jesus is clear about it.

 

[Calminian]

Ummmmm, he DID say that we should be innocent as doves and wise as serpents, did he not???

So how are you being wise as a serpent by announcing you're intention never to use your weapon? Shouldn't you be promoting this lie everywhere you go?

 

[Calminian]

Well, good for you.

I would be a pacifist if I took the Bible literally.

Jesus is clear about it.

Yes, he told us to be pacifists in regard to insults such as in the case of slaps on the cheek, and to use swords for self defense in the case of violence. And of coarse he told to to practice capital punishment for murderers all throughout the old testament.

BTW, it's ironic that those who think a slap is a reference to violence, seem to throw out the most insults.

 

[Zecryphon]

Well, good for you.

I would be a pacifist if I took the Bible literally.

Jesus is clear about it.

Why? I take the Bible as written. I take it as poetry, when it's written as poetry, parable when it's written as a parable, instructive when it's written as instructive. I see no reason to be a pacifist based upon the Bible.

 

[Zecryphon]

So how are you being wise as a serpent by announcing you're intention never to use your weapon? Shouldn't you be promoting this lie everywhere you go?

Yeah, that seems to be a waste of a perfectly good Glock.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Yes, he told us to be pacifists in regard to insults such as in the case of slaps on the cheek, and to use swords for self defense in the case of violence. And of coarse he told to to practice capital punishment for murderers all throughout the old testament.

BTW, it's ironic that those who think a slap is a reference to violence, seem to throw out the most insults.

Hmm.. smite means just a bit more than a light slap.

Webster
SMITE, v.t. pret. smote; pp. smitten, smil. [This verb is the L. mitto.]
1. To strike; to throw, drive or force against, as the fist or hand, a stone or a weapon; to reach with a blow or a weapon; as, to smite one with the fist; to smite with a rod or with a stone. Whoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mat 5.

2. To kill; to destroy the life of by beating or by weapons of any kind; as, to smite one with the sword, or with an arrow or other engine. David smote Goliath with a sling and a stone. The Philistines were often smitten with great slaughter. [This word, like slay, usually or always signification, that of beating, striking, the primitive mode of killing. We never apply it to the destruction of life by poison, by accident or by legal execution.]

3. To blast; to destroy life; as by a stroke or by something sent. The flax and the barley were smitten. Exo 9.

4. To afflict; to chasten; to punish. Let us not mistake God's goodness, nor imagine, because he smites us, that we are forsaken by him.

5. To strike or affect with passion. See what the charms that smite the simple heart. Smit with the love of sister arts we came.

As for the capital punishment it seems like that is what Jesus was speaking against, not for, when he said you have heard it said an eye for an eye but I say unto you ... Then goes on to say that we are to love are enemies and forgive those who tresspass against us... I think it is pretty clear that Jesus is in fact tellign us to hold our temper, not inact vengace but to forgive and be merciful.

As for the general topic of not harming anyone for any reason again I disagree with that notion, to protect sometimes it may be nessacary but when the damage has been done already there is no virtue in harming the offender as the harm has been done and additional harm to another, even if it is the guilty party only increases the problem.

 

[Calminian]

Hmm.. smite means just a bit more than a light slap.

The greek word is actually slap.

Matt. 5:39 “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (NKJV)

Matt. 5:39 “But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. (NASB)

Matt. 5:39 but I — I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other; (Young's Literal Translation)

You could argue that it was a bit more aggressive than the word in english, but it was never a term used to describe killing or injuring in and of itself. It was actually one of the things they did to Jesus to insult him before crucifying him.

Matt. 26:67 Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him,

Here a distinction is actually made between punching and slapping. All of these were done to humiliate our Lord.

In ANE culture this was a grievous insult, even more so than in ours. Spitting in the face might be a better comparison, but a slap in our culture is pretty insulting as well. Jesus was simply letting them know that eye for eye legislation did not apply to insults such as this. I think it's very likely he was pointing them back to the Old Testament where it is said over and over that the wise man overlooks an insult (Prov. 12:16). A slap just isn't going to hurt you and there's no reason for the christian to slap back.

As Jesus continues he does a very similar thing in addressing lawsuits. To use a very vernacular saying, he seems to be telling us not to sweat the small stuff. Don't return insult for insult and don't fight legal battles over coats and scarfs. He never says let them punch or take a bat to your other cheek, nor let them take your car (or donkey) if they're trying to unjustly take your house. But if they're trying to take your coat, my goodness, just give it to them and throw in your scarf. It's not worth it and you'll likely heap coals of repentance on their heads. (Prov. 25:21-22)

Make sense?

 

[Soul Searcher]

The greek word is actually slap.

Matt. 5:39 “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (NKJV)

Matt. 5:39 “But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. (NASB)

Matt. 5:39 but I — I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other; (Young's Literal Translation)

You could argue that it was a bit more aggressive than the word in english, but it was never a term used to describe killing or injuring in and of itself. It was actually one of the things they did to Jesus to insult him before crucifying him.

Matt. 26:67 Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him,

Here a distinction is actually made between punching and slapping. All of these were done to humiliate our Lord.

In ANE culture this was a grievous insult, even more so than in ours. Spitting in the face might be a better comparison, but a slap in our culture is pretty insulting as well. Jesus was simply letting them know that eye for eye legislation did not apply to insults such as this. I think it's very likely he was pointing them back to the Old Testament where it is said over and over that the wise man overlooks an insult (Prov. 12:16). A slap just isn't going to hurt you and there's no reason for the christian to slap back.

As Jesus continues he does a very similar thing in addressing lawsuits. To use a very vernacular saying, he seems to be telling us not to sweat the small stuff. Don't return insult for insult and don't fight legal battles over coats and scarfs. He never says let them punch or take a bat to your other cheek, nor let them take your car (or donkey) if they're trying to unjustly take your house. But if they're trying to take your coat, my goodness, just give it to them and throw in your scarf. It's not worth it and you'll likely heap coals of repentance on their heads. (Prov. 25:21-22)

Make sense?

The Greek word is not slap, while it can mean slap it is not limited to that meaning.

rhapizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to smite with a rod or staff
2) to smite in the face with the palm of the hand, to box the ear

This is the word used in both cases translated as smite and smote in the KJV, slap and slapped in one of your examples. As you can see the second definition does indicate a slap or perhaps a punch whereas definition 1 indicates the use of a stick or a club.

I do agree that in chapter 26 it does appear to be referring to a slap but that is 21 chapters later and can't really be considered to be the same context so it would be an error to assume that the word means the same thing in both places based on that alone, especially when we see that the word carries more than one meaning.

In any case I know what you mean, but to say he only meant insult or slap is to take what he said a bit to literally based on a single meaning of the word. Or other words it's like looking for a loophole that allows certian actions, by the letter one could say if they slap you on the left cheek it's ok to beat the snot outta them since Jesus only refered to the right cheek but we all know [or should] that is not the intention of the teaching.

IMO much of what Jesus taught was general rather than specific he was trying to make a point that often becomes literalized and as a result the point is lost.

I don't think he was really getting at don't sweat the small stuff but rather that we need to be forgiving and merciful to others, to try and put ourselves in thier shoes and treat them as we would be treated should the roles be reversed. It should never be said to be limited to little things though. It would certianly be harder with bigger issues but that doesn't make it any less valid in such cases.

 

[Calminian]

The Greek word is not slap,

Yes it is. In fact you just quoted a definition that says it is?

This is the word used in both cases translated as smite and smote in the KJV,

Which is often an archaic translation and the cause of much confusion. The KJV is the favorite translation of every skeptic out there.

slap and slapped in one of your examples. As you can see the second definition does indicate a slap or perhaps a punch whereas definition 1 indicates the use of a stick or a club.

It can indicate the use of a rod, which is also not injurious, but if it did, context would indicate it. If the text was taking about talking a dangerous weapon to the cheek, offering the other would be impossible as you'd be unconscious. That interpretation doesn't make any sense in this context.

I do agree that in chapter 26 it does appear to be referring to a slap but that is 21 chapters later and can't really be considered to be the same context so it would be an error to assume that the word means the same thing in both places based on that alone, especially when we see that the word carries more than one meaning.

It's the only other time the word is used in the N.T. and by the same author in the same book. What context would you use to justify the use of a dangerous injurious weapon?

In any case I know what you mean, but to say he only meant insult or slap is to take what he said a bit to literally based on a single meaning of the word.

And context.

IMO much of what Jesus taught was general rather than specific he was trying to make a point that often becomes literalized and as a result the point is lost.

I think you should take him literally.

I don't think he was really getting at don't sweat the small stuff but rather that we need to be forgiving and merciful to others, to try and put ourselves in thier shoes and treat them as we would be treated should the roles be reversed. It should never be said to be limited to little things though. It would certianly be harder with bigger issues but that doesn't make it any less valid in such cases.

Wow, that's a whole lot to read into that passage. I think he actually just meant what he said.

 

[Giver]

The Greek word is not slap, while it can mean slap it is not limited to that meaning.

rhapizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to smite with a rod or staff
2) to smite in the face with the palm of the hand, to box the ear

This is the word used in both cases translated as smite and smote in the KJV, slap and slapped in one of your examples. As you can see the second definition does indicate a slap or perhaps a punch whereas definition 1 indicates the use of a stick or a club.

I do agree that in chapter 26 it does appear to be referring to a slap but that is 21 chapters later and can't really be considered to be the same context so it would be an error to assume that the word means the same thing in both places based on that alone, especially when we see that the word carries more than one meaning.

In any case I know what you mean, but to say he only meant insult or slap is to take what he said a bit to literally based on a single meaning of the word. Or other words it's like looking for a loophole that allows certian actions, by the letter one could say if they slap you on the left cheek it's ok to beat the snot outta them since Jesus only refered to the right cheek but we all know [or should] that is not the intention of the teaching.

IMO much of what Jesus taught was general rather than specific he was trying to make a point that often becomes literalized and as a result the point is lost.

I don't think he was really getting at don't sweat the small stuff but rather that we need to be forgiving and merciful to others, to try and put ourselves in thier shoes and treat them as we would be treated should the roles be reversed. It should never be said to be limited to little things though. It would certianly be harder with bigger issues but that doesn't make it any less valid in such cases.

Why are you concerned about the one verse? These other verses explain in more detail that we are not to cause harm to anyone.(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”