Whose Vengeance is it Anyway?

[SteveIndy]

What you can or cannot do is your prerogative. If someone was killing your family would you really stand idly by and do nothing? Nonetheless your rationale that you offer is based on an argument of silence which is the weakest form of argumentation. The OT and NT is replete with examples of God's children killing other people. Israel of course is one example where God not only approves of but commands them to kill their enemies. In the NT Jesus commends the centurion for his faith and does not tell him to quit his occupation. How can one one be commended for having great faith when one's primary occupation is based on killing others?

Your kind of Christianity is typical of the modern day apostasy of “doing what is right in their own eyes.” You say, “Nonetheless your rationale that you offer is based on an argument of silence which is the weakest form of argumentation.” If someone would say to you that “because your whole history is silent on the idea that you are a mass murderer it is fair to assume that you are indeed a mass murderer.” You would say that that silence is all the proof you need and that every court in the land would uphold that “silence” as clear proof of your innocence. Yet, you will not allow this clear evidence of the life of Jesus, His Apostles, and very many years of the primitive Church to speak on their behalf? The fact is that that silence of Jesus spoke loudly of His opinion on the matter. Also, the “silence” you accuse me of (which was no silence at all) you turn right around and use in your own justification. The example you use of the centurion is a prime example of the argument from silence. The Bible is silent on what happened after the centurion’s conversion so we can only assume his actions, therefore my assumption is just as valid as yours, and more so because the rest of the N.T. evidence points in the direction that he “followed” Jesus’ example. The O.T. cannot be admitted as evidence because it has been overridden by the N.T. and I can provide plenty of evidence to that effect if necessary. So, you state that the N.T. is “replete” with evidence of Christians killing other people but give not one proof, so your testimony is not admitted. All of the accumulated N.T. evidence, taken together, stands firm to prove my claim that the New Testament Church is to follow the way of Jesus’ life and words, as exemplified by His Apostles and the Primitive Church (who were closest to the original lives and knew better than those who came later), that non-resistance to the evil person, as spoken by Jesus in Matthew 5:39, is the pattern for the Church in all ages. As to the matter of what I would do personally has no bearing on the facts.

 

[Oldmantook]

Your kind of Christianity is typical of the modern day apostasy of “doing what is right in their own eyes.” You say, “Nonetheless your rationale that you offer is based on an argument of silence which is the weakest form of argumentation.” If someone would say to you that “because your whole history is silent on the idea that you are a mass murderer it is fair to assume that you are indeed a mass murderer.” You would say that that silence is all the proof you need and that every court in the land would uphold that “silence” as clear proof of your innocence. Yet, you will not allow this clear evidence of the life of Jesus, His Apostles, and very many years of the primitive Church to speak on their behalf? The fact is that that silence of Jesus spoke loudly of His opinion on the matter. Also, the “silence” you accuse me of (which was no silence at all) you turn right around and use in your own justification. The example you use of the centurion is a prime example of the argument from silence. The Bible is silent on what happened after the centurion’s conversion so we can only assume his actions, therefore my assumption is just as valid as yours, and more so because the rest of the N.T. evidence points in the direction that he “followed” Jesus’ example. The O.T. cannot be admitted as evidence because it has been overridden by the N.T. and I can provide plenty of evidence to that effect if necessary. So, you state that the N.T. is “replete” with evidence of Christians killing other people but give not one proof, so your testimony is not admitted. All of the accumulated N.T. evidence, taken together, stands firm to prove my claim that the New Testament Church is to follow the way of Jesus’ life and words, as exemplified by His Apostles and the Primitive Church (who were closest to the original lives and knew better than those who came later), that non-resistance to the evil person, as spoken by Jesus in Matthew 5:39, is the pattern for the Church in all ages. As to the matter of what I would do personally has no bearing on the facts.

Your reply evidences that you do not even understand what constitutes an argument of silence. An argument of silence wrongly presumes that just because the text makes no mention of a subject or issue, then one can cite that as justification or basis for one's own argument. The fact that there is no further mention of what happened to Centurion after his encounter with Jesus has nothing to do with an argument of silence. I based my argument on exactly what did happen in which Jesus commended him for his great faith. My specific and direct question to you which you avoided and failed to answer was how could Jesus commend him for his faith when his primary occupation involved killing people? You also managed to avoid answering my question if you would stand by and do nothing to prevent an assailant from murdering your family members due to your self-imposed aversion to violence. If you want to have a discussion, at least do me the courtesy of responding to my direct questions.
Since you claim that the NT eschews violence, why does Jesus himself at his Second Coming along with all the saints to kill all of those on the earth who are opposed to him? This sounds pretty violent to me. Furthermore, you take Matt 5:39 out of context as you fail to take note of the previous verse which supplies its context.
38 You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Verse 38 refers to vengeance. Verse 39 starts with the conjunction "but" which connects it to the previous verse indicative of contrast. Therefore v.39 specifically refers to refraining from retaliating against those who wrong us. It does not prohibit us from non-resistance or protecting ourselves or our loved ones as you wrongly assert. I suggest you stick to the text of the passage instead of doing what is right in your own eyes.

 

[SteveIndy]

Your reply evidences that you do not even understand what constitutes an argument of silence. An argument of silence wrongly presumes that just because the text makes no mention of a subject or issue, then one can cite that as justification or basis for one's own argument. The fact that there is no further mention of what happened to Centurion after his encounter with Jesus has nothing to do with an argument of silence. I based my argument on exactly what did happen in which Jesus commended him for his great faith. My specific and direct question to you which you avoided and failed to answer was how could Jesus commend him for his faith when his primary occupation involved killing people? You also managed to avoid answering my question if you would stand by and do nothing to prevent an assailant from murdering your family members due to your self-imposed aversion to violence. If you want to have a discussion, at least do me the courtesy of responding to my direct questions.
Since you claim that the NT eschews violence, why does Jesus himself at his Second Coming along with all the saints to kill all of those on the earth who are opposed to him? This sounds pretty violent to me. Furthermore, you take Matt 5:39 out of context as you fail to take note of the previous verse which supplies its context.
38 You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Verse 38 refers to vengeance. Verse 39 starts with the conjunction "but" which connects it to the previous verse indicative of contrast. Therefore v.39 specifically refers to refraining from retaliating against those who wrong us. It does not prohibit us from non-resistance or protecting ourselves or our loved ones as you wrongly assert. I suggest you stick to the text of the passage instead of doing what is right in your own eyes.

Your reasoning and your knowledge of Scripture is clouded by the flesh so it is time to move on. By the way, Christ was here the first time as a Lamb, it is only on His return as the Judge and Lion that necessitates judgment on those who reject Him. Good luck!

 

[Oldmantook]

Your reasoning and your knowledge of Scripture is clouded by the flesh so it is time to move on. By the way, Christ was here the first time as a Lamb, it is only on His return as the Judge and Lion that necessitates judgment on those who reject Him. Good luck!

Clouded by the flesh? How so? If you can provide scriptural evidence contrary to my explanation of the Matthean passage then please do so as you must deal with the text itself. I demonstrated that turning the other cheek which you interpret to mean no violence at all is not an axiomatic truth based on its context. At this point we simple agree to disagree.

 

[CatRandy]

So you find yourself at your child's school one day - at the same time that another person has planned to carry out a mass killing of the students there. You may have in your possession a pocket knife you always carry, or maybe even a gun as you have a license to carry. You may even have a bat in your hand as you were on your way to the baseball field. Or you my have nothing in your possession but you see a fire extinguisher on the wall. You see the person begin shooting. What do you do? If you had something in your possession that you could use to stop the attacker wouldn't you use it? Or would you just say to yourself it's up to God to avenge?

1. In 2017 (I believe), a school teacher was able to talk a school shooter down without violence. In these hypothetical situations why are the given responses always only do nothing and watch the shooter continue killing, or pull a gun and kill the shooter? Christian non-violence does not mean inaction, it means non-violent action in the Spirit of love and grace, trusting our Sovereign Father with the results.
2. If there’s a school shooting, and you see someone with a gun how do you know whether it’s the shooter, another citizen with a gun, or a police officer who is either off duty and therefore out of uniform or is a plainclothes detective? If they, or any other police responders see you with a gun, what is to keep them from shooting you?
3. If you are shooting a weapon in a high stress situation, can you guarantee that you could never miss the person you were aiming at and hit a child you perhaps did not see?

 

[CatRandy]

Did you forget this Roman soldier?

Act 10:21 and Peter having come down unto the men who have been sent from Cornelius unto him, said, `Lo, I am he whom ye seek, what is the cause for which ye are present?'
Act 10:22 And they said, `Cornelius, a centurion, a man righteous and fearing God, well testified to, also, by all the nation of the Jews, was divinely warned by a holy messenger to send for thee, to his house, and to hear sayings from thee.'
....
Act 10:30 And Cornelius said, `Four days ago till this hour, I was fasting, and at the ninth hour praying in my house, and, lo, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Act 10:31 and he said, Cornelius, thy prayer was heard, and thy kind acts were remembered before God;
....
Act 10:34 And Peter having opened his mouth, said, `Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons,
Act 10:35 but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him;

Your argument doesn't even stand up from a place of silence in the scriptures. Read what God thought about this soldier Cornelius. Peter had the perfect opportunity to instruct him that he couldn't be a soldier and a Christ follower, but he didn't and there isn't anywhere in the Bible that makes that claim.
There isn't anywhere in the Bible that says we cannot defend ourselves and others.

You say that Peter’s silence supports the Centurion’s right to remain in the military. However, if true, that would support by silence, a number of things that went along with being in the Roman military.

Every year, they were required to give an Oath of Allegiance to Caesar by worshipping Caesar. At least 3 times a month they would be required to worship the state gods along with every one in their unit. Also on the birthday of Caesar and anyone in his family, they were required to worship the State gods and pray to them for the safety of Caesar and his family. These duties were considered by the Romans to be political in nature and they would not be exempt.

Saying that the Bible’s silence about military service in this passage allows military service would also be saying that worshipping and praying to the Roman gods was also allowed, which of course is not the case. Silence does not mean consent, it means that the issue is not addressed in that passage.

 

[Hank77]

You say that Peter’s silence supports the Centurion’s right to remain in the military. However, if true, that would support by silence, a number of things that went along with being in the Roman military.

Every year, they were required to give an Oath of Allegiance to Caesar by worshipping Caesar. At least 3 times a month they would be required to worship the state gods along with every one in their unit. Also on the birthday of Caesar and anyone in his family, they were required to worship the State gods and pray to them for the safety of Caesar and his family. These duties were considered by the Romans to be political in nature and they would not be exempt.

Saying that the Bible’s silence about military service in this passage allows military service would also be saying that worshipping and praying to the Roman gods was also allowed, which of course is not the case. Silence does not mean consent, it means that the issue is not addressed in that passage.

My point is that being in military service does not stop one from being a Christian. If it was Peter would have had to inform the centurion before he prayed for him.

It was not just the soldier who had to declare Caesar himself was a god. Christians were put to death for refusing to do so.
But as far as worshiping goes, no can force someone to worship. Worship is a matter of the heart.
There are people who attend church every week, they sing hymns, they join in corporal pray, but it is a show for others, a habit from childhood, etc..

 

[CatRandy]

My point is that being in military service does not stop one from being a Christian. If it was Peter would have had to inform the centurion before he prayed for him.

It was not just the soldier who had to declare Caesar himself was a god. Christians were put to death for refusing to do so.
But as far as worshiping goes, no can force someone to worship. Worship is a matter of the heart.
There are people who attend church every week, they sing hymns, they join in corporal pray, but it is a show for others, a habit from childhood, etc..

Your logic is still flawed. Here’s why:
1. Peter didn’t tell the Centurian that he couldn’t remain in the military,
Therefore,
2. Peter’s silence means that it is ok to be in the Roman military.
But, that is the same as saying:
1. Peter didn’t tell the Centurian that he couldn’t remain in the military,
2. The Roman military were required to worship Caesar and the Roman gods,
Therefore,
3. Peter’s silence means that it’s ok to worship Caesar and Roman gods.

The fact that Peter didn’t mention his military career only means that it was not covered in the passage. It says nothing about whether it’s right or wrong.

Silence does not mean consent.

 

[Hank77]

Your logic is still flawed. Here’s why:
1. Peter didn’t tell the Centurian that he couldn’t remain in the military,
Therefore,
2. Peter’s silence means that it is ok to be in the Roman military.
But, that is the same as saying:
1. Peter didn’t tell the Centurian that he couldn’t remain in the military,
2. The Roman military were required to worship Caesar and the Roman gods,
Therefore,
3. Peter’s silence means that it’s ok to worship Caesar and Roman gods.

The fact that Peter didn’t mention his military career only means that it was not covered in the passage. It says nothing about whether it’s right or wrong.

Silence does not mean consent.

That's true silence doesn't mean consent.

 

[SteveIndy]

1. In 2017 (I believe), a school teacher was able to talk a school shooter down without violence. In these hypothetical situations why are the given responses always only do nothing and watch the shooter continue killing, or pull a gun and kill the shooter? Christian non-violence does not mean inaction, it means non-violent action in the Spirit of love and grace, trusting our Sovereign Father with the results.
2. If there’s a school shooting, and you see someone with a gun how do you know whether it’s the shooter, another citizen with a gun, or a police officer who is either off duty and therefore out of uniform or is a plainclothes detective? If they, or any other police responders see you with a gun, what is to keep them from shooting you?
3. If you are shooting a weapon in a high stress situation, can you guarantee that you could never miss the person you were aiming at and hit a child you perhaps did not see?

One of the earmarks of modern commercial Christianity is to read the New Testament then come up with a number of scenarios and interpretations that allow the reader and escape route of disobedience. If we had nothing but the example of the life of Jesus it would be enough, but we have much more than that. The Apostles and disciples followed His example for the better part of three hundred years till men started building a religion to their own liking. If His example and words do not agree with our disposition then the new rule of interpretation is to come up with scenarios that demand a different understanding. Of course, the flesh must be pacified, but don’t you see that has always been the problem; it is called deafness and blindness.

 

[Dave L]

Serving in the military is wrong. Doesn't Christ command us "not to swear at all"? When you entered military service you had to take an oath to obey your commanding officer and uphold the constitution of the U.S., didn't you? When you took that oath you separated yourself from Christ and bound yourself to those who require you to do things that Christ rejects. You cannot serve two masters, you must choose who you will serve and with that oath you made your choice.

Your quote is incorrect. It was John the Baptist who said these words. Keep in mind that John was still under the O.T. law, e.g. "The Law and the prophets were until John." So, John understood life from an O.T. vantage point; Jesus had not yet completed the New Covenant.

Also Paul tells us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. If we cannot walk after our own flesh and serve Christ, how can we walk after the flesh of an unbeliever and serve Christ?

 

[Oldmantook]

1. In 2017 (I believe), a school teacher was able to talk a school shooter down without violence. In these hypothetical situations why are the given responses always only do nothing and watch the shooter continue killing, or pull a gun and kill the shooter? Christian non-violence does not mean inaction, it means non-violent action in the Spirit of love and grace, trusting our Sovereign Father with the results.
2. If there’s a school shooting, and you see someone with a gun how do you know whether it’s the shooter, another citizen with a gun, or a police officer who is either off duty and therefore out of uniform or is a plainclothes detective? If they, or any other police responders see you with a gun, what is to keep them from shooting you?
3. If you are shooting a weapon in a high stress situation, can you guarantee that you could never miss the person you were aiming at and hit a child you perhaps did not see?

I don't rule out option #1 so that is a red herring argument. In fact, non-violence should be the first response. At other times, unfortunately self-defense through violence may be the only remaining option.
2. It's called situation awareness; something you would be acutely cognizant of, if you were properly trained.
3. No one can can guarantee that they would never miss. Does the possibility of missing one's target override the probability that many lives might otherwise be saved? I think not.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No. Anabaptist (this section you are in) do not believe in nor approve of violent self-defense that harms another person, nor that it is ever proper or necessary.
i.e. it is not only not the only "remaining option", it is not an option at all.

Trusting the Heavenly Sovereign Creator as He Says to DO, is good and right to DO.

 

[CatRandy]

I don't rule out option #1 so that is a red herring argument. In fact, non-violence should be the first response. At other times, unfortunately self-defense through violence may be the only remaining option.
2. It's called situation awareness; something you would be acutely cognizant of, if you were properly trained.
3. No one can can guarantee that they would never miss. Does the possibility of missing one's target override the probability that many lives might otherwise be saved? I think not.

1. God is Sovereign over everything that happens.
2. We are commanded to use non-violence in response to our enemies (Mt 5:38-48;Rom 12:17-21).
Therefore:
3. Violence is never the only remaining option for a Christian.

 

[Oldmantook]

1. God is Sovereign over everything that happens.
2. We are commanded to use non-violence in response to our enemies (Mt 5:38-48;Rom 12:17-21).
Therefore:
3. Violence is never the only remaining option for a Christian.

1. God is sovereign, but humans always have the choice to act or not act.
2. In the Matt passage you seem to be unaware that in those days, a slap on the right cheek would have indicated that someone was giving a back-handed slap to someone's right cheek. Under the Jewish law, to slap a person is considered as a great insult because by doing so, you have humiliated that person. But by slapping him with the back of your hand, you have inflicted double damage upon him. Thus Jesus was referring to being greatly insulted by another person by receiving a backhanded slap. Jesus' instruction was not to respond in kind but to turn the other cheek in response to that insult. No need to resort to violence in response to insults. If someone was trying to kill you, do you think Jesus would say just turn the other cheek and let the other person murder you? I think not. The Romans passage refers to not taking revenge. It does not refer at all to acting in self-defense or coming to the defense of others so your point is moot.
3. You can choose to believe what you wish and stand idly by when someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones. That in my opinion is not loving your enemies but neglecting to take action to protect innocent victim(s).

 

[CatRandy]

God is sovereign, but humans always have the choice to act or not act.

That's right. We have the right to obey Christ's commands or to disobey them. We have the right to trust God or to not trust him.

In the Matt passage you seem to be unaware that in those days, a slap on the right cheek would have indicated that someone was giving a back-handed slap to someone's right cheek.

The slap was one example of three that Jesus gave in regards to his command of "do not resist the evil person", meaning as Paul said, "do not resist evil with evil" and "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good'.

If someone was trying to kill you, do you think Jesus would say just turn the other cheek and let the other person murder you? I think not.

3. You can choose to believe what you wish and stand idly by when someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones. That in my opinion is not loving your enemies but neglecting to take action to protect innocent victim(s).

People who want to justify the use of violence always bring up this argument as if the only options are to stand there and do absolutely nothing, or pull out a gun and kill the person. Christian non-violence does not mean non-action, it means using non-violent action.

 

[Oldmantook]

That's right. We have the right to obey Christ's commands or to disobey them. We have the right to trust God or to not trust him.

Trusting God and not doing anything does not automatically entail obedience. That is a false equivocation. If a child was being raped and I stood there without doing anything would I be acting righteously? I would first shout to stop and try to scare away the rapist but if such a nonviolent action had no affect whatsoever, would I not have to escalate my actions?

The slap was one example of three that Jesus gave in regards to his command of "do not resist the evil person", meaning as Paul said, "do not resist evil with evil" and "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good'

Indeed overcome evil with good but no where in the entire Bible are we told that we are not to defend ourselves when our lives are endangered.

People who want to justify the use of violence always bring up this argument as if the only options are to stand there and do absolutely nothing, or pull out a gun and kill the person. Christian non-violence does not mean non-action, it means using non-violent action.

Again, I did not say those are the only two alternatives. You are the one making such claims. One can do nothing which is a possibility. One can run away which is a possibility. One can use non-lethal actions which are a possibility. As a last resort, one can use lethal actions to protect oneself or the lives of others.

 

[CatRandy]

Trusting God and not doing anything does not automatically entail obedience. That is a false equivocation. If a child was being raped and I stood there without doing anything would I be acting righteously? I would first shout to stop and try to scare away the rapist but if such a nonviolent action had no affect whatsoever, would I not have to escalate my actions?

The same God who commands our obedience in using non-violent actions is able to give us wisdom on what actions to take, and to make those actions effective.

 

[CatRandy]

Trusting God and not doing anything does not automatically entail obedience. That is a false equivocation. If a child was being raped and I stood there without doing anything would I be acting righteously? I would first shout to stop and try to scare away the rapist but if such a nonviolent action had no affect whatsoever, would I not have to escalate my actions?

The same God who commands our obedience in using non-violent actions is able to give us wisdom on what actions to take, and to make those actions effective.

no where in the entire Bible are we told that we are not to defend ourselves when our lives are endangered.

Nowhere in the New Testament are does it say that we are allowed to use violence and to kill.

 

[Oldmantook]

The same God who commands our obedience in using non-violent actions is able to give us wisdom on what actions to take, and to make those actions effective.

God gives us wisdom to take nonviolent or violent actions. When David slew Goliath, God gave him wisdom and the skills to do so. When Jesus returns with the saints, violent actions will ensue resulting in the deaths of many. Why did the disciples carry swords with them? I'm sure it wasn't for decoration. To claim that non-violent actions are the only obedient actions available to Christians does not fit with the whole of Scripture.