PDA

View Full Version : The other cheek



Jesusdiedforme
Jul 14th 2009, 06:53 AM
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

does this condem self-defense?

MarleVVLL
Jul 14th 2009, 06:55 AM
In context, yep.

tt1106
Jul 14th 2009, 09:30 AM
I don't think it condemns self defense, I think it instructs us on how to resist evil. Resist evil with good. I try to remember that Jesus always instructed and modeled how he wanted us to behave. therefore how he wants us to behave is modeling for other people. For example, if someone were to strike your cheek, you have several options;
The non-violent approach would be to take it. The aggressive approach is to fight back. Jesus doesn't tell us to be passive, he tells us to turn to him the other cheek. There is a response he is commanding. We need to actually do something. That something is to offer him the other cheek.
Didn't Paul after being stoned, dragged out and left for dead, turn around and walk right back into the city?

matthew94
Jul 14th 2009, 02:46 PM
I agree with tt1106

Jesus is introducing a 3rd option
It's not pacifism
It's not vengence

Turning the other cheek forces the offender to look the offendee in the eye, to realize they are a human being. It potentially changes the perspective of the conflict. A good example of this would be the theorized 'solutions' to the Palestinian conflict. Some say the way to peace is pacifism (not doing anything). Some say the way to peace is aggression (peace through strength). But Brother Andrew, for instance, has a different approach. He takes Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews and puts them in a room together until they realize they are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now someone might say, "well that's great, but it won't solve the Palestinian conflict for those who aren't Christians." I agree and simply say there is no ultimate solution to such a problem outside of Christ.

But in a more direct answer to the question, I'd say the passage isn't so much talking about a situation in need of defense. I believe the wording has more to do with a mocking slap than a violent punch. I think it is appropriate in many contexts to utilize self-defense. But we have to realize that they ultimate way to break down evil is not by fighting back, but by killing it with kindness.

notuptome
Jul 14th 2009, 02:54 PM
In context it is kingdom principal. This is the way it will be when Christ is on the throne of David and ruling in His kingdom on the earth. The loin will eat straw with the ox at that time as well.

Jesus instructed His disciples to buy a sword for their protection. Self defense or the defense of one's family over whom we are given charge is correct. Vengence is never correct. Vengence belongs to the Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

SIG
Jul 14th 2009, 05:43 PM
It condemns unforgiveness.

holyrokker
Jul 14th 2009, 05:54 PM
It addresses the issue of revenge.

Jesus begins by say: You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'
This was from Leviticus, addressing the issue of justice. But the people had turned it into revenge. We still do that today.
Jesus was not condemning self-defense. He was warning against seeking revenge.

MarleVVLL
Jul 14th 2009, 08:24 PM
Sure, those are the internals - but if an evil man hits you in the face, Jesus tells you to turn the other cheek. What is that? He taught to refuse to defend yourself in context to evil. Now, of course, He was hitting a heart reality, but you only know that the heart reality is right when it is manifesting in the external.

Naphal
Jul 15th 2009, 03:31 AM
This is simply about a very small offense....a slap on the cheek. That type of thing in those days was a minor thing and Christ says to accept it without responding in kind which could easily escalate the situation into true physical violence. It is also most likely speaking of brothers/ village people you know more than true enemies that have invaded as this is about a slap not a true attack or situation of self defense.


If someone slaps you, most likely because something you said to them has offended them, then you can afford to ignore it for the gospels sake. Christ does not say to look the other way if someone punches or stabs you.


Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.


Here Christ is making sure his followers are armed with swords which would be for self defense against deadly threats.

MarleVVLL
Jul 15th 2009, 06:27 AM
Jesus isn't talking about a 'slap', or a 'minor' offense, although, that certianly isn't excluded. The Greek word means, '1) to smite with a rod or staff, 2) to smite in the face with the palm of the hand, to box the ear'. Plus, the context is 'no small offense'. Being robbed is a pretty intense violation of morality, and Jesus response stays the same.

My two cents..

Naphal
Jul 15th 2009, 06:42 AM
Jesus isn't talking about a 'slap', or a 'minor' offense, although, that certianly isn't excluded. The Greek word means, '1) to smite with a rod or staff, 2) to smite in the face with the palm of the hand, to box the ear'.

Of course it's a "slap". Its speaking of hitting "with the palm of the hand" which is a slap.

A slap is the "least" of physical harms. Next up from that is a punch which is of a more serious intent.



Plus, the context is 'no small offense'. Being robbed is a pretty intense violation of morality, and Jesus response stays the same.

For this thread I am only addressing the slap in regards to being able to defend oneself from greater harm or death. We should turn the cheek to small offenses but we should use deadly force to defend ourselves or our loved ones. The only exception is martyrdom ordained by God.

BrotherD
Jul 15th 2009, 07:15 AM
Of course it's a "slap". Its speaking of hitting "with the palm of the hand" which is a slap.

A slap is the "least" of physical harms. Next up from that is a punch which is of a more serious intent.




For this thread I am only addressing the slap in regards to being able to defend oneself from greater harm or death. We should turn the cheek to small offenses but we should use deadly force to defend ourselves or our loved ones. The only exception is martyrdom ordained by God.

I disagree with you and others that say we need to defend ourselves or worst say we can use deadly force. Please show me in the New Testament where it says to use deadly force, and no Jesus didn't have the disciples buy swords to defend (My Kingdom is not of this world) Him but that He would be reckoned among the transgressors Luke 22:37.

Mat 5:5: Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Mat 5:39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mat 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Rom 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

1 Th 5:15: See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

1 Pet 3:9: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

Naphal
Jul 15th 2009, 07:26 AM
I disagree with you and others that say we need to defend ourselves or worst say we can use deadly force. Please show me in the New Testament where it says to use deadly force,
and no Jesus didn't have the disciples buy swords to defend (My Kingdom is not of this world) Him but that He would be reckoned among the transgressors Luke 22:37.

The swords were to be used to defend themselves, not to prevent Christ dying. Swords are deadly weapons and when they are used for offense or defense there is the chance of a deadly wound yet Christ wanted them to carry swords and to even sell their clothes to be able to own a sword.


Luke 22:36 Then Jesus said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

BrotherD
Jul 15th 2009, 07:51 AM
The swords were to be used to defend themselves, not to prevent Christ dying. Swords are deadly weapons and when they are used for offense or defense there is the chance of a deadly wound yet Christ wanted them to carry swords and to even sell their clothes to be able to own a sword.


Luke 22:36 Then Jesus said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


So that's the only scripture you can use in the New Testament to defend your theology of deadly force? :o Yes I agree they sold there garment to buy a sword, by the way only 2 swords where bought, why weren't 11 swords bought for each disciple? according to you they all had to defend themselves.
And what did Jesus say when one of the disciples took the ear off of one of the High Priest's servant? Mat 26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

I disagree with you on deadly force and with those that believe in self-defense. I'm not married and have no children, maybe that's not the case with you and you feel strongly about defending your family (if you have one), but He gave us an example by not resisting evil Himself.

Naphal
Jul 15th 2009, 08:15 AM
So that's the only scripture you can use in the New Testament to defend your theology of deadly force?

I only need to supply one example for something to be true yet self defense isn't only shown in the NT but the OT:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him," we are told in Exodus 22:2. The next verse says, "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house if you feel that it was needed. That's the ultimate expression of self-defense. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property and your life.

The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn't send in the Marines. The people defended themselves.

In 1 Samuel 25:13, we read: "And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff."

Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.
Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?"

The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defense.

"Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight," David writes in Psalms 144:1.

we should recall Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.

"They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon," we're told in Nehemiah 4:17-18. "For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded."




Yes I agree they sold there garment to buy a sword, by the way only 2 swords where bought, why weren't 11 swords bought for each disciple? according to you they all had to defend themselves.

Perhaps the other 9 already had swords? It doesn't matter. It only matters to show that Jesus supported the carrying of deadly weapons which had the primary use of self defense. That's what this thread is about. It is ok to turn the cheek and it is ok to have a weapon to defend yourself. Neither contradicts the other in proper context.




And what did Jesus say when one of the disciples took the ear off of one of the High Priest's servant? Mat 26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Context, context, context...Peter was trying to stop Christ from being crucified and that was ordained to occur by God so Peter was in the wrong here but note that Jesus did not reprimand Peter for having a weapon of self defense. Jesus just a few verses before made sure his followers were armed but Peter misunderstood why they were armed and for what reason.



I disagree with you on deadly force and with those that believe in self-defense.

And I in turn disagree with you as well.



I'm not married and have no children, maybe that's not the case with you and you feel strongly about defending your family (if you have one), but He gave us an example by not resisting evil Himself.

Unrelated example.


Ephesians 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Ephesians 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Now, this is spiritually speaking HOWEVER, there is a very good reason as to why these examples and this language is used....because these things were ok to be used for self defense and Godly ordained wars. Day to day a man would not carry a shield, armor or a helmet literally but he would carry a sword of some form.

RoguePastor
Jul 15th 2009, 08:30 AM
Turning the other cheek is an admonishment to not act in a vengful manner. If someone strikes you human reaction is to strike back immediately and in anger. By turning the other cheek you afford yourself and the striker a moment to "cool off" and think about what just happened.

We are told to wear the Full Armor of God but so few actually know what that armor looks like. It is modeled after 1st century Roman armor. The Helmet has steel ear and cheek guards. If we are "armored up" a strike will not faze us like those that are unarmored. In short, those wearing their armor can shrug it off and focus on healing the cause of the strike rather than the indignation of the strike itself.

Naphal
Jul 15th 2009, 09:12 AM
And would you mind sharing your views on self defense relating to more serious physical harm or death of self or loved ones?


Turning the other cheek is an admonishment to not act in a vengful manner. If someone strikes you human reaction is to strike back immediately and in anger. By turning the other cheek you afford yourself and the striker a moment to "cool off" and think about what just happened.

We are told to wear the Full Armor of God but so few actually know what that armor looks like. It is modeled after 1st century Roman armor. The Helmet has steel ear and cheek guards. If we are "armored up" a strike will not faze us like those that are unarmored. In short, those wearing their armor can shrug it off and focus on healing the cause of the strike rather than the indignation of the strike itself.

RoguePastor
Jul 15th 2009, 09:22 AM
Naphal,

It really depends on my options to be honest. If I can escape without doing harm and no one else will come to harm either, I will take that option.

If someone were to engage me with a weapon, if I could disarm them I would do that. If I couldn't disarm them nor escape them, I would hurt them but only enough to stop them.

If you endanger my family... well you really don't want me to answer that.

Slug1
Jul 15th 2009, 10:40 AM
Paul shows us a prime example of self defense. In chapter 23 of Acts, he discovers a plot to to kill him during his travels to Caesarea. He informs the Centurion commander. Who orders a force of about 470 soldiers to protect Paul during his travels.

So many Christians say as a Christian, we are to turn the other cheek but will call the police when we or another person is threatened. Paul made the first 911 call :lol:. He didn't turn the other cheek, he used a means to protect himself. If he had chose to turn the other cheek, he'd have never told that commander and would have left on his own.

Sure, we are to turn the other cheek and it's even mentioned in the OT as well:

Proverb 19:11 The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger,
And his glory is to overlook a transgression.

As mentioned in this thread, this is another option cause what would have happened if those assassins had attacked to kill Paul... don't think Paul would have stood before those soldiers and accepted the sword stroke that would have killed him. No, he'd be behind them as they killed all the attackers. Since Paul was the one who placed the 911 call, it's his responsibility the attackers are dead or captured (if he'd been attacked).

Just as today, that Christian puts in a 911 call cause they hear someone breaking into their house and the police show up and in the process of their search find an armed and aggressive thief who will not surrender and they end up killing him... if the Christian had turned the other cheek and never called... well, then the Christian might be dead and not the thief.

Point being, they didn't... like Paul didn't... turn the other cheek and God can continue to use them for His glory.

There is a time and a place (opportunity) where turning the other cheek will give glory to God, in all others, you either have dead Christians or ones who are robbed cause they failed to defend themselves.

Naphal
Jul 15th 2009, 11:07 AM
Thanks for that Slug.

This is a bit related as well:


2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Here much evil was done rather than a "slap" in the face. Timothy doesn't take revenge but nor does he turn the other cheek. He takes his case to God so God might decide to punish the evil doer.



Paul shows us a prime example of self defense. In chapter 23 of Acts, he discovers a plot to to kill him during his travels to Caesarea. He informs the Centurion commander. Who orders a force of about 470 soldiers to protect Paul during his travels.

So many Christians say as a Christian, we are to turn the other cheek but will call the police when we or another person is threatened. Paul made the first 911 call :lol:. He didn't turn the other cheek, he used a means to protect himself. If he had chose to turn the other cheek, he'd have never told that commander and would have left on his own.

Sure, we are to turn the other cheek and it's even mentioned in the OT as well:

Proverb 19:11 The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger,
And his glory is to overlook a transgression.

As mentioned in this thread, this is another option cause what would have happened if those assassins had attacked to kill Paul... don't think Paul would have stood before those soldiers and accepted the sword stroke that would have killed him. No, he'd be behind them as they killed all the attackers. Since Paul was the one who placed the 911 call, it's his responsibility the attackers are dead or captured (if he'd been attacked).

Just as today, that Christian puts in a 911 call cause they hear someone breaking into their house and the police show up and in the process of their search find an armed and aggressive thief who will not surrender and they end up killing him... if the Christian had turned the other cheek and never called... well, then the Christian might be dead and not the thief.

Point being, they didn't... like Paul didn't... turn the other cheek and God can continue to use them for His glory.

There is a time and a place (opportunity) where turning the other cheek will give glory to God, in all others, you either have dead Christians or ones who are robbed cause they failed to defend themselves.

Truthinlove
Jul 15th 2009, 04:20 PM
Best teaching I have ever heard on the "turning the other cheek" passage!! :pp

He touches on the other verses in that context as well, but I think everyone should listen to this. It really opened my eyes.

http://www.parkway.cc/MP3s/TC/TC1607.mp3

always
Jul 16th 2009, 02:43 PM
I think one needs to consider that "turn the other cheek" is a symbolic phrase used, that simply means to "start anew" yes, this individual may have hurt you physically or mentally perhaps.

However to turn a cheek, and let him see you, through the power of Christ Jesus, show a different side of you to him. One that he can start over the relationship, forgetting the pass.

Is the power of witnessing, a new birth in Christ.

dan
Jul 24th 2009, 08:08 AM
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

does this condem self-defense?

Jesus is saying, "don't be provoked, or even appear to be provoked by this action". He does not say let anyone murder you for fun. Indeed, He has other sayings that include self-defense:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

1COR 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.