Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The other cheek

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The other cheek

    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 died for me and you too!

  • #2
    In context, yep.

    Comment


    • #3
      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?

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        The Matthew Never Knew
        The Knew Kingdom

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            It condemns unforgiveness.
            Phl 4:11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.
              You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought.

              Charles G Finney



              http://holyrokker.blogspot.com

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  1Peter 3:15
                  (BBE) But give honour to Christ in your hearts as your Lord; and be ready at any time when you are questioned about the hope which is in you, to give an answer in the fear of the Lord and without pride;

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MarleVVLL View Post
                      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.
                      1Peter 3:15
                      (BBE) But give honour to Christ in your hearts as your Lord; and be ready at any time when you are questioned about the hope which is in you, to give an answer in the fear of the Lord and without pride;

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Naphal View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BrotherD View Post
                          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.
                          1Peter 3:15
                          (BBE) But give honour to Christ in your hearts as your Lord; and be ready at any time when you are questioned about the hope which is in you, to give an answer in the fear of the Lord and without pride;

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Naphal View Post
                            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? 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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BrotherD View Post
                              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.
                              1Peter 3:15
                              (BBE) But give honour to Christ in your hearts as your Lord; and be ready at any time when you are questioned about the hope which is in you, to give an answer in the fear of the Lord and without pride;

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X