Did Jesus command us not to defend ourselves?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No disrespect intended but this sounds very close to the same type of logic used by Christians to justify beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

I want to address this. I can see why this looks similar to you, but I assure you, it’s not :).

A general rule of interpretation is that the specific always trumps the general, for that specific occasion only. That’s the rule I followed here. Given that the specific contradicts the general and replaces it for this occasion, there must be a reason for this contradiction. I provided a crazy speculation for what that reason might be. There are others, of course, including the idea that Jesus had lost his nerve in that moment, that he was sick of pacifism, that this passage is misreported or mistranslated, etc. Given his scolding of Peter for using the sword against an evil person later on, though, it seems pretty unlikely me that his reason for telling them to get swords was so they could use them against evil people.

Daniel

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Consider that the Bible most likely written by followers of Jesus and selected by a council of Christian leaders were probably in favor of number 1. That’s kinda how it’s presented isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]

If one were to read the Bible absent the knowledge that it was put together by a bunch of men–and without the influence of a whole bunch of other men who have spun the story in such a way that makes belief in the unverifiable more important than our conduct with one another–and just went by Jesus’ words and the story of his death, they would see that number 1 (fulfillment of the prophecy sacrifice story) is greatly overshadowed by number 2 (“learn how to live your life by looking at me”).

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
If one were to read the Bible absent the knowledge that it was put together by a bunch of men–and without the influence of a whole bunch of other men who have spun the story in such a way that makes belief in the unverifiable more important than our conduct with one another–and just went by Jesus’ words and the story of his death, they would see that number 1 (fulfillment of the prophecy sacrifice story) is greatly overshadowed by number 2 (“learn how to live your life by looking at me”).
[/QUOTE]

I agree that teaching us how to live with each other, how to see the connection between us and our fellow man, was more to the point than all the doctrine contrived by men since.

specifically though , we have to try and understand why Jesus escaped mobs earlier and then indicated , before his arrest, that it was his time. I don’t embrace the blood sacrifice for sins doctrine. I also don’t think that loving our fellow man requires that we all surrender to our death. Each situation and circumstance, each individual is unique.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
specifically though , we have to try and understand why Jesus escaped mobs earlier and then indicated , before his arrest, that it was his time.
[/quote]

I don’t think this has anything to do with whether or not he advocated pacifism, though. If he came to Earth to teach man first and foremost, then he may have held off being captured so he could do a thorough job of that. There wouldn’t have been sermon on the mountain if he hadn’t escaped those other times. Jesus was being practical, not defensive.

I don’t embrace the blood sacrifice for sins doctrine. I also don’t think that loving our fellow man requires that we all surrender to our death.

I don’t either, but then again I don’t really call myself a Christian anymore. I think Jesus did teach that it was better to get oneself killed by not fighting than to commit the sin of fighting. To echo others in this thread, it takes a more tortuous reading of the scriptures to conclude otherwise.

[you_with_the_face]

And I’ll add this as food for thought.

Perhaps Jesus, knowing how deeply the self-defense instinct comes embedded in man, preached pacifism with the intention of only pushing us in that direction…but without the expectation that we’d ever get there.

If he came out and said, “Don’t resist evil, except in the face of Super Bad Evil. Then it’s perfectly okay to go medival on that ass and stomp its face into the ground,” then folks would be more inclined to overlook the “don’t resist evil” part and focus on carrying out the exception to the rule. So he made it real simple for us: “Don’t resist evil”.

If we take to heart that commandment, which allows no room for disclaimer or qualification, then it raises the threshold necessary to bring us to violence. We still may lash out and stuff when something bad happens and our frailities kick in, but we feel guilty about it…not justified (as we tend to do now). And so the world is a better place, because there’s less violence all around, ya know?

This is my take. I think Jesus’ teachings are impractical if you look at it from a zero tolerance standpoint. But I think Jesus taught zero tolerance in the hope that he’d crack down on our violent tendencies at least *60%.

*a percent pulled out of my ass.

[Thudlow_Boink]

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
It was asked if a person can defend someone being violently attacked without themselves feeling any angry, hateful feelings. I’d say the answer is obviously no
[/QUOTE]
Well, certainly one of Asimov’s robots could.

[Thudlow_Boink]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The assumption that X is absolutely true is that, when Jesus said, “Do not resist an evil person,” he was sincere in what he said. I take him at his word here.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you want to get really picky about it, Jesus didn’t actually say, “Do not resist an evil person.” What he actually said was something in Aramaic, which got written down in Greek, and translated into English. Looking at the various translations of the verse available on biblegateway.com, I see that there are different ways the saying could be translated, some of which differ nontrivially from the way you’re reading it.

I realize this could be used as a way of weaseling out of obeying a seemingly clear command (“Well, we don’t know what Jesus really said, so I’ll follow whatever interpretation seems easiest or most convenient”), but I don’t want to do that here. I just think there are legitimate, non-weaselly ways in which people can honestly differ over what Jesus intended.

And where there are different interpretations and implications possible, I’m inclined to go with the ones that are most consistent with the rest of what Jesus said and did.

It’s true that the attack on the Pharisees appears to contradict what he said. At this point, One has three options that I can see:

1. Try to find a way to resolve the contradiction. My previous explanation of the sword passage resolves that apparent contradiction to my satisfaction, but I do not see a convincing way to resolve this one.
2. Follow what Jesus did, not what he said to do.
3. Follow what Jesus said to do, not what he did.

This passage makes the most sense to me as a sign of Jesus’s imperfection. He blew his top and did something that he probably shouldn’t have done, according to his own teaching. Since I don’t believe that he was perfect (and indeed I think that’s a view shared by some believers, who point to his “Why have you forsaken me?” plea as an example of his imperfection), seeing this as a deviation from what he told folks to do is unproblematic.

I disagree with you here; I think it makes sense to assume that, in general, Jesus knew what he was doing and intended to do it. It just fits better with the overall picture of Jesus I get from the gospels—especially with the fact that he condemned hypocrisy in the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, and admonished his followers to Do as they say, not as they do.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
And I’ll add this as food for thought.

Perhaps Jesus, knowing how deeply the self-defense instinct comes embedded in man, preached pacifism with the intention of only pushing us in that direction…but without the expectation that we’d ever get there.

If he came out and said, “Don’t resist evil, except in the face of Super Bad Evil. Then it’s perfectly okay to go medival on that ass and stomp its face into the ground,” then folks would be more inclined to overlook the “don’t resist evil” part and focus on carrying out the exception to the rule. So he made it real simple for us: “Don’t resist evil”.

If we take to heart that commandment, which allows no room for disclaimer or qualification, then it raises the threshold necessary to bring us to violence. We still may lash out and stuff when something bad happens and our frailities kick in, but we feel guilty about it…not justified (as we tend to do now). And so the world is a better place, because there’s less violence all around, ya know?

This is my take. I think Jesus’ teachings are impractical if you look at it from a zero tolerance standpoint. But I think Jesus taught zero tolerance in the hope that he’d crack down on our violent tendencies at least *60%.

*a percent pulled out of my ass.
[/QUOTE]

The lengthy mess that this thread has become is because I’ve been way to wordy, {nothing new to me} in trying to express a minor point.

I agree that Jesus taught zero tolerance. I’ve tried to express that the zero tolerance was spiritually based not physically. Zero tolerance for malice, resentment, revenge, etc. Zero tolerance for the lie that one life is superior to another, and all the things we use to separate ourselves from each other.

I’ve suggested that love for our fellow man even our enemies, does not prohibit self defense in every situation.

I agree that being human we may still lash out and then feel guilty. If we take his words to heart a moment of anger and the urge for revenge may become forgiveness. We may decide to restrain someone rather than strike them. Still, in certain situations I think love , not revenge or malice, might require that we use force. I think it’s a mistake to read absolutism into the physical rather than the spiritual in light of the rest of JCs teaching. of course that’s IMHO.

btw I stopped calling myself a Christian some time ago myself. Even though I can still enjoy a good service I just don’t agree with enough of what’s taught to embrace that label.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Well, if you want to get really picky about it, Jesus didn’t actually say, “Do not resist an evil person.” What he actually said was something in Aramaic, which got written down in Greek, and translated into English. Looking at the various translations of the verse available on biblegateway.com, I see that there are different ways the saying could be translated, some of which differ nontrivially from the way you’re reading it.

I realize this could be used as a way of weaseling out of obeying a seemingly clear command (“Well, we don’t know what Jesus really said, so I’ll follow whatever interpretation seems easiest or most convenient”), but I don’t want to do that here. I just think there are legitimate, non-weaselly ways in which people can honestly differ over what Jesus intended.
[/QUOTE]

Great point. A good reason to be very cautious about being to rigid and too absolute.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Well, certainly one of Asimov’s robots could.
[/QUOTE]

So when Jesus said “Father forgive them” it proves he was a robot.
Now it’s all so clear.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I want to address this. I can see why this looks similar to you, but I assure you, it’s not :).

A general rule of interpretation is that the specific always trumps the general, for that specific occasion only. That’s the rule I followed here. Given that the specific contradicts the general and replaces it for this occasion, there must be a reason for this contradiction. I provided a crazy speculation for what that reason might be. There are others, of course, including the idea that Jesus had lost his nerve in that moment, that he was sick of pacifism, that this passage is misreported or mistranslated, etc. Given his scolding of Peter for using the sword against an evil person later on, though, it seems pretty unlikely me that his reason for telling them to get swords was so they could use them against evil people.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, it still doesn’t look any different. What surprises me is that you can come up with loads of theories to explain those apparent contradictions and entertain them as real possibilities, and yet you can’t seem to entertain the idea that my take on it is also a possibility. Oh well

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Sorry, it still doesn’t look any different. What surprises me is that you can come up with loads of theories to explain those apparent contradictions and entertain them as real possibilities, and yet you can’t seem to entertain the idea that my take on it is also a possibility. Oh well
[/QUOTE]

Who says I can’t entertain the idea that your take on it is a possibility? I just think it’s a very unlikely possibility. Your possibility contains another contradiction: if Jesus intended for them to take up swords against evil men, why did he condemn Peter for using his sword against an evil man?

@Thudlow Boink

Well, if you want to get really picky about it, Jesus didn’t actually say, “Do not resist an evil person.” What he actually said was something in Aramaic, which got written down in Greek, and translated into English. Looking at the various translations of the verse available on biblegateway.com, I see that there are different ways the saying could be translated, some of which differ nontrivially from the way you’re reading it.

True. Given this discussion, then, it’d probably be hepful to find the most literal possible translation of the passage, wouldn’t it?

Enter The New American Standard Bible:

39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but (A)whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Huh.

Why do I say this is the most literal translation? Here’s why:

The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say–not merely what the translator believes they mean.

Granted, this is their own take on their translation. Maybe they’re exagerrating? I’m not a Biblical scholar, and I’m not equipped to evaluate their claim. I was able to find a review of the text:

The NASB is extremely literal in its rendering of the Greek and Hebrew. Some have even claimed it is “unequaled in its faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew texts.” Others have labeled this tendency “severely literalistic” (Bruce M. Metzger, Theology Today, April, 1976). As a result of the effort to translate the original as literally as possible, the NASB is almost completely free from “paraphrasing tendencies” (Dr. Jack P. Lewis). The NASB has kept the original word order of the Greek and Hebrew wherever possible, as they believed this was “a means the writer used to accent and emphasize what he deemed most important.” Even conjunctions occurring in the original language texts have been retained, although they may be unnecessary in English, “because the Holy Spirit led men to write that way.” The NASB translators write, “Words are faithfully rendered in the NASB even to conjunctions such as ‘and’ in the belief that these, too, helped mirror the writer’s style and manner of expression. These are often ignored in free translation.” Warren Wilcox writes, “The NASB renders the Greek verb tenses the most accurately of any modern translation!” He further writes that it is to be commended for being “at its very center and heart, true to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.”

Daniel

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Who says I can’t entertain the idea that your take on it is a possibility? I just think it’s a very unlikely possibility.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough

Your possibility contains another contradiction: if Jesus intended for them to take up swords against evil men, why did he condemn Peter for using his sword against an evil man?

Better read it again. All four gospels say he struck a servant of the high priest. Was he an evil man or just there with his master?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Fair enough
Better read it again. All four gospels say he struck a servant of the high priest. Was he an evil man or just there with his master?
[/QUOTE]
By “he,” you mean Peter, right? I don’t understand what you’re suggesting here; is your implication that Jesus would have praised Peter had Peter instead struck the high priest?

Daniel

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
By “he,” you mean Peter, right? I don’t understand what you’re suggesting here; is your implication that Jesus would have praised Peter had Peter instead struck the high priest?

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

You said Peter used his sword against an evil man. What made you think the servant was evil? Perhaps Jesus was defending an innocent bystander , which means what you claimed was a problematic contradiction for my theory, …is not.

I guess that’s being picky. I just noticed your use of evil man, when the passages don’t support that conclusion. It seemed an odd error for someone who wants a literal reading.

I think Jesus had already indicated he was going to his death. It also seems like the mob came prepared with swords and clubs while the disciples had what, two swords? Perhaps he didn’t want his disciples to die in an unsuccessful attempt to save him because he wanted their work of spreading his message to continue later. when he told them to take sword and purse and tunic earlier it sounded like a warning to be ready for some persecution.

All speculation which leaves us with no definite conclusion. We just disagree on this issue.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You said Peter used his sword against an evil man. What made you think the servant was evil? Perhaps Jesus was defending an innocent bystander , which means what you claimed was a problematic contradiction for my theory, …is not.
[/QUOTE]

Again, it’s a shame that, if that’s what Jesus meant, he didn’t say that either here or in the Sermon on the Mount. “Put that sword away, Peter–he’s just a slave!” would have worked. Or, “Goddammit, Peter, are you trying to get all the disciples killed?” would have worked. Or, “When you resist an evil person, be very careful not to harm innocent bystanders” would have been an imminently reasonable message.

I agree that speculation leaves us nowhere. I think that the path of least speculation is the position I’m taking.

Daniel

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Again, it’s a shame that, if that’s what Jesus meant, he didn’t say that either here or in the Sermon on the Mount. “Put that sword away, Peter–he’s just a slave!” would have worked. Or, “Goddammit, Peter, are you trying to get all the disciples killed?” would have worked. Or, “When you resist an evil person, be very careful not to harm innocent bystanders” would have been an imminently reasonable message.

I agree that speculation leaves us nowhere. I think that the path of least speculation is the position I’m taking.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

I know you do, But your last few posts contained a bunch of speculation such as using swords for wild animals. You may find those speculations resolve the apparent contradiction for you, but they appear no better quality of speculation than mine. For myself, a continued study of the NT tells me that some things are just not that clear and we must decide for ourselves.

Thanks for participating