Well you have got a big nose. Big Nose!
Stranger
I don’t think it’s clear at all. There’s a huge difference between merely being slapped and having your life – or worse, the lives of your family members – threatened.
There is simply no justification for the claim that Jesus was a complete pacifist.
Simply speaking there certainly is:
No. We are here temporarily, our goal is eternity in heaven after a (short/long/hard/easy) life of obedience to God. And just to keep it interesting, we will be faced with temptations to sin. Maybe we will want excessive social power, huge wealth or a life without conscience, or maybe the temptations will be more subtle but which lead us to lose focus on the eternal: allowing our attachments to things of this world to lead us to violent or self-serving actions. God gave me the company of my wife, and God gave life to her. He has the right to take it all back. If’ she’s horribly killed in front of me, I should not intervene–He’s set this up for a reason. maybe to teach my wife something, maybe to test my devotion to Him as opposed to my devotion to her, maybe to begin a lesson for the perpetrator. It’s not for me to decide, my job is to look after my own soul and my duty to God.
Right? Or am I missing something?
But you have to keep in mind that Jesus is not us. He is God, and we know that God isn’t a pacifist. The question is whether we are supposed to be pacifists. And there is plenty of justification that he wanted us to be.
Yeah, here’s where things get fuzzy for me. I *hope * I would be strong enough to meet violence with Christlike stoicism. But I *know * I would not be able to stand by and watch someone else being attacked.
I can almost find justification for this in Jesus’ intervention between the adultress and the mob who would have stoned her. I say “almost” because he did not have to resort to violence; but the precedent of standing between the weak and their attackers is there.
I think this is the same turn of thinking that prompted Bonhoeffer to participate in the plot to assassinate Hitler, which gives me some confidence in my stand. I’m also aware that it’s probably the same logic used by Abortion Clinic Bombers to justify their actions, which gives me pause. I think it’s the tension between the two extremes that keeps me from the hubris of absolute certainty.
Well, in a way that’s why I pretty much gave up thinking the Scriptures were able to communicate anything to the polloi.
Here are the salient quotes from Matthew 5 you do not think are “clear at all”:
39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
43You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor* and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[c] and pray for those who persecute you*
There are many ways and tricks to creating various “interpretations” to change what may be otherwise construed as superficial meanings. “Putting into context” and “comparing with other passages” and “understanding the historical meaning” and all kinds of other machinations.
But how much clearer could this particular passage be?
My observation about Christianity (and other religions) is that humans have reinvented the concepts as time went on in order to conform to their own ideas, rather than those of the original authors. Take from it what you will but I have become convinced that no text would be able to be clear enough to protect the original meaning from the perversion of “interpretation.”
I know exactly where it came from. You’ll note that I prefaced that section with “I’ve wondered” as in , here are two similar metaphors and I wonder if and how they might relate. it was not a statement of a proposed doctrine.
Please, the metaphor means we are part of the same spiritual body, but we do live and function in the physical world.
I am not a Christian. Neither am I interested in finding justifications. The Bible and books like it require us to think and interpret. Humans being what we are will interpret according to their own preferences.
You don’t have to try very hard to find reasons to scoff at Christians or Christianity if that’s your goal. Certainly some Christians justify their indulgences, or worse, their moral crimes. That doesn’t change the fact that what we have in the Bible are guidelines that do not apply to every particular situation we might encounter in life. It requires interpretation , thoughtful consideration and soul searching. It requires taking a phrase or several phrases that have moved us and applying them to day to day life until the meaning becomes clearer and the living of “love they neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” becomes a part of who we are rather than a command we reluctantly obey.
Is that what you thought you were doing before? If so you’ll have to try harder.
While I’m not an attorney, I can see a lot of glaring loopholes right off… what are the odds of someone striking you on the right cheek? Most people being right-handed, a fist is much more likely to land on my left, and he didn’t mention that one. Nor a punch in the kidney (right or left), kick in the balls, nipple twist, atomic wedgie, or innumerable other types of assault, which by my reading, carry no clearly delineated prohibition against like reprisal. Clearly, Jesus should’ve had a team of lawyers help him draw up an enumerated list—but he didn’t, or chose not to, so we have the Christianity we have: something akin to a scriptural buffet. Take whatever you like, but not more than you can stomach.
In fairness, the whole notion of transcendence through allowing other people to pound on you is likely to earn you a quick ticket out of the gene pool in this or any other era, but I’d have more respect for Christians if they conceded that it was impossible to live down, rather than coming up with tortuous alternate interpretations of what he meant. (Likewise for the Clintonian spins on the camel and the needle.)
In that chapter Jesus says what is written about him must be fulfilled. Perhaps he was willing to go to his death but didn’t necessarily want his disciples to be accused and killed with him. Perhaps he wanted them to scatter and hide in order to carry on later.
Fair enough. My own guess is that they don’t relate at all, and aren’t supposed to. I think it’s problematic to read too much unity into Biblical passages, as if they were some kind of code that all fits together on a higher level. Jesus also said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed, and elsewhere he said to take the bread of his body and eat it. It’s unlikely that he intended people to conclude from those two separate passages that he should be eaten with mustard. But if he did, I believe he would have preferred the brown, spicy deli style.
Well, sure. And marriage unifies two people in spirit, doesn’t it? Because the physical union is pretty much the same whether you’re married or not. So if everyone is part of the same spiritual body already, then marriage is entirely superfluous, yes?
Anyway, doesn’t the passage from Corinthians use the “one body” metaphor to refer to spiritual unity among baptized Christians? So your earlier notion about defending your family from a psycho killer wouldn’t apply unless the psycho killer is also a Christian. If he isn’t, then you aren’t “cutting off a diseased limb” by attacking him.
But the goal isn’t to interpret the Bible according to people’s individual preferences, is it? The goal is to interpret the Bible’s message as it was intended, since there’s presumably some content-specific spiritual insight in there somewhere. Granted, the Bible is a mess of conflicting voices intended for a variety of audiences. But if readers can’t even conclude that the guy who told his followers “Love your enemies” and “don’t fight evil people,” and who allowed himself to be imprisoned, humiliated and crucified-- if readers can’t even reliably conclude that he was a pacifist, then how is it possible to learn anything from him? They’re just using the story of his life as a weird sort of Rorshach test; they might as well be studying the life of Edgar Bergen for all the instructive value the actual text has.
I believe that in all likelihood the Bible wasn’t just intended as a set of “guidelines,” and Jesus wasn’t just making suggestions to be interpreted differently for each new situation, in the hopes of some later spiritual epiphany. He told his followers to be passive and pacifistic and have faith in God no matter what, and he followed that philosophy even to his own death.
It’s a weird and counterintuitive set of beliefs, and this is probably why it inspires people to look for hidden meanings where there are none. It’s not a guarantee of success in life, because it wasn’t supposed to be. Indeed, it’s a recipe for failure in an imperfect world; but Jesus taught that it was better to aspire toward spiritual perfection, and damn the consequences. “Blessed are the meek,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” This is a religion expressly for losers. Following Jesus means-- well, it means following Jesus; that is to say, you will likely end up nailed to a tree somewhere, naked and dead. Jesus believed that this didn’t really matter in the big scheme of things.
I am a Christian, but do not believe that Jesus commanded us not to defend ourselves.
A quick google search gave a page that while not authoritative gives a pretty decent argument, IMO
Here it is, crappy design and font non-withstanding
Shamelessly ripped:
*The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: “What’s interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]…If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand…To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent.”
The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian’s personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.
In terms of following Christ’s example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God’s will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God’s timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ’s unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection.
THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. It is noteworthy that the Bible records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth (“The LORD of hosts”–Exodus 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints–nor even Jesus–are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).
Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.
Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.*
Is “dying for what you believe in” the same thing as “killing for what you you believe in”? Now, if John 15:14 had read “Greater love has no one than this, that he may lay down his enemy’s life for his friends”, there might be a case for self defense or defense of others.
I call foul. Jesus is referring to love between himself and his disciples. He laid down his life not by fighting in self-defence, but by letting his enemies walk all over him.
Also, protecting your family or neighbor isn’t “self-defence.”
How can anyone know what Jesus would condone? Are there any primary sources that purport to have heard him speak? Do you have any evidence that he is anything but a fictional character?
If we are speaking of the literary Jesus, shouldn’t this thread be in Cafe Society? Seriously. Absent any contemporary accounts of Jesus’ philosophical musings, how can there be an answer to the OP?
I call double-foul 
My personal beliefs (and what I believe to be Christian beliefs):
Jesus didn’t die for his disciples; he died for all humans
There is no arbitrary division between Jesus’ disciples and either the Romans or the Hebrew community that condemned him.
All humans sin; therefore all humans are de facto enemies of God. Christians believe Jesus’ sacrifice is a necessary component of being reconciled to God; therefore it would make no sense to talk about Jesus defending himself from those that crucified him. He came to the earth specifically to be crucified.
In which case his allowing himself to be killed wasn’t a matter of deciding to defend himself or not; his death has nothing to do with the death of whether or not to defend ones self.
But if that’s the case, then the remark doesn’t seem to make sense. Jesus says, “This is my commandment, that ye love one another as I have loved you.” Then: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Jesus shows his love by laying down his life. But if his sacrifice has no relevance to what others should do, then what does the commandment mean? Jesus specifically says to love others as he did.
At best, it seems that his teachings allow martyrdom-- you could, for example, take the place of another person being killed, or interpose yourself between an attacker and their victim, taking the blows yourself instead.
I don’t know what to say about that whole “striking on the cheek = insult” argument from your link, except that it seems to me like another example of a forced interpretation to make Christian life easier. After all, allowing someone to insult you is a lot easier to take than allowing them to hit you. But the remark is a reply to the “eye for an eye” injunction from the Old Testament, which I don’t believe anyone has interpreted as referring only to insults.
Been there, heard that, to all of the usual arguments.
There is no question that the Bible is self-contradictory and vague and has wiggle room all over the place. That is one of the reasons so many have stopped seeing it as some sort of divine revelation. The inconsistency and the wiggle-room alone make it unlikely an Almighty meant it as a Reference.
The OP is asking if Jesus, and not Christians, commanded us not to defend ourselves. Yes he did, and very specifically. To the extent he is quoted elsewhere as saying (or depicted as doing) something different, one has to accept that the author erred in the telling or that Christ was inconsistent, and one has to decide which passages more likely carry the thrust of his message.
On balance, and particularly given the weight of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, it requires a great deal of wiggling and interpretation and pulling in snippets of other passages to create a case for self-defense and Just Wars.
The archetype of Jesus stands as a pacifist who turns the other cheek, loves his enemies, and dies without self-defense because the Father God retains total control of even the dying sparrow, and the forfeit of this life along with its suffering leads only to gain for eternity.
As a rule of thumb, anytime the Christian explanation for what the Bible is “really” saying is many times longer than the Bible text, you can be sure the “interpretation” is at odds with what is plainly said.
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”