I noticed in this thread and in others lately there’s been some discussion about what exactly Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek. The passages in question are from Matthew 5:38 and Luke 6:29. Here is the quote from Matthew.
Usually these verses are taken to mean that a follower of Christ is to be nonviolent to a fault. I’m sure many would not disagree with ignoring the angry drunk who pokes his finger in your chest and maybe even takes a swing at you. Certainly he’s no threat.
Suppose a criminal breaks into your house. Some might suggest that you let him take whatever he wants and not put up a fuss. Jesus might even agree with them. But what if he tries to seriously hurt you? What if he tries to cut you with a switchblade or pistol-whip you? What if he tries to shoot you in the face?
What if he tries to rape your wife or harm your children?
The question for debate: is there any kind of violence that Jesus would condone?*
*May the first person who says something along the lines of “Blowing up towelheads for oil” be banned immediately for trolling.
As a youngster I was unable to find any New Testament justification for violence perpetrated by Christians in the name of any cause. As a consequence I was a conscientious objector. There is a substantial tension in Christian thought over reconciling physical violence of any kind with the words of Jesus. At the Christian college I attended, an entire philosophy series was devoted to the idea of whether or not a Just War was possible.
When one looks at certain wars, and certain scenarios, they do seem Just. However I find it impossible to reconcile such a concept with the teachings of Jesus Christ. He was clearly a pacifist and seemed unconcerned with any consequences of such pacifism here on earth. “My kingdom is not of this world…”
It is true that Jesus made a comment about bringing a sword, and not peace. It is true he is recorded as driving money-changers from the temple. But in the former example, it seems clearly metaphorical and in the latter it seems to be about forcible expulsion but substantially short of bodily harm.
The teachings of Jesus were that it is the Heavenly Father who watches over all. It follows that it is unnecessary for us to defend ourselves. This is such a counterintuitive precept that it has been widely disregarded and ignored. Nevertheless the general idea is that personal harm, even to the point of death, in this temporal existence, is of little eternal consequence. It’s really not that big of a deal if the robber kills you and your family. That would only hasten your eternal reward.
CP: Excellent post. I can’t think of much else to add. Jesus’s message is full of references to the insignificance of the physical and the primacy of the spiritual.
I agree with the previous posts. Jesus harmed no one, and forgave those who executed Him. His focus was in the spiritual, how peaceful the world would be if we could see as He did.
I was just talking about this topic the last couple days with my family and friends. What brought it up was me reading “Why I Am So Wise” by Friedrich Nietzsche. Scroll to Chapter 5 and read 5 and 6.
I see nothing in Jesus’s words, nor the NT that says a Christian must submit to his wife being raped, or kids harmed in the name of Christianity.
I agree with the earlier posts as to the nature of non-violence. An inference can be made that our bias, or inclination, should be towards peace.
As with the drunk analogy, if there is an option of taking one’s leave, we must. There is a difference, however, between suffering the indignity of being slapped, and having your wife raped. [and you have the ability to resist]
I believe this is a matter for a Christian’s trained conscience. In this context, Christ has little to say, and did not give an exhaustive treatise as to handle every conceivable situation a Christian might find himself in. Like so many other things he talked about, principles were given vs step by step recipes.
If some guy is crawling through my window----and I have the ability to flee—than I should flee rather than killing him in self defense. If I am being berated, or threatened I shouldn’t return evil for evil. I cannot kill someone attempting to steal my car or stereo.
But if my family was cornered and there was no other option—reason, negotiation, pleading, flight etc------I believe there is no contradiction in using a sufficient amount of force to safeguard my family; the minimum amount of force needed (or threat of force) to safeguard them.
Romans 13
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
This would seem to argue against your contention that nowhere does the NT give a justification for a Christian to fight in a war, since it orders believers to be subject to their government.
Simon Peter had a sword in the Garden, and took off a man’s ear. This leads me to believe that the Disciples openly carried weapons while travelling with Jesus. If Jesus really meant for them to submit to any sort of attack, wouldn’t he have told Simon Peter to stop walking around with a sword?
I would also like to point out that John Knox, founder of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, carried a two handed sword when he was preaching, to protect himself from the established churches.
You have misapplied these texts. Paul spoke on several occasions about the view Christians should have about secular authorities (There are others besides these) and the issue of submission to authority. Both he and Peter addressed this, including conflicts between secular law and “God’s Law.”
This text speaks to a Christian’s views on secular authority and is not a complement to the texts cited in the OP.
My point was that it doesn’t matter what Paul was talking about. Paul isn’t Jesus. The OP is asking specifically about Jesus. Now, you can postulate that Jesus was talking to us thru Paul, but I don’t accept that postulate.
I’m not a Christian, so bear with me. If Jesus is the son of God, then why are his statements about what he’s doing or his actions relevant to how humans are supposed to behave? He doesn’t have to live by the same rules that humans do, does he? If he chases money changers from the temple, how does it follow that humans can do the same thing? Or am I misunderstanding the nature of Jesus?
I mentioned the NT in general b/c my particular background (evangelical Christianity) does in fact ascribe to the entire block of texts in the NT an equal authority. While Paul (and Jesus) advocate general submission to secular authority, it’s hard for me to read the NT and envision either of them gunning down an enemy soldier or slaughtering an attacker.
The OP asks if Jesus commanded us not to defend ourselves, and I think that Matthew 5:38-44 is about as clear as you can be on that point. There just is not much room for debate over what seems to be very explicit teaching.
I am no longer a pacifist (although Mr Bush is doing his best to turn me into one again…) but I find a tremendous disconnect between NT teachings and Christian “interpretations” and I consider those interpretations of areas such as self-defense and Just Wars to be practical but inaccurate. This is one of those areas that’s pretty much black and white if you read the words of Jesus (or red and black if you have a fancy edition ).
On a bit of a tangent: This is also the philosophy of many martial arts. Aikido, for example, teaches students to simply redirect attacks and sustain the self. Jujitsu teaches arm locks and other ways to incapacitate one’s opponent. Both of these preach never attacking/hurting your opponent.
I think that there is a case to be made for reading the bible in such a way as to say that violence is simply forbidden, that there is some power in martyrdom that will show your enemy the error of his ways. The Christian will go to Heaven if he is martyred in such a saintly fashion.
I think this is one of the reasons why Paul argued against sexual relations of any kind, because having a family would connect you to worldly political structures, providing a divided loyalty that would draw you further from God.
As for that Peace and Sword bit, I think that was metaphorical, in that his message would divide families as people abandoned the culture of their birth for the new Universal religion that asked people to love all human beings regardless of filial connection.
).