Will the National Media Run with this Story?

[RoyalShock]

"Turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with physical violence. In those days getting verbally insulted was a "slap on the cheek". So that passage means we are not to trade insult for insult. Jesus also told his disciples to take a sword with them for protection from robbers. Loving your enemy doesn't mean allowing them to physically assault you.

[RoyalShock]

I've always understood the teachings to be in the personal level. When it is about you personally being wronged, those teachings are about how you need to react. Personal humility, not retaliating, showing love, valuing others over yourself, etc.

To me, it stops once it is about more than yourself. Sometimes you need to serve and protect others based in love, by fighting for what is right. Once it leaves the personal level...

While I think the wisdom can be taken beyond the personal level without losing it's relevance (depending on specific situations, of course), that's a pretty good way to put it.

[1979Shocker]

Jesus also told his disciples to take a sword with them for protection from robbers. Loving your enemy doesn't mean allowing them to physically assault you.

I did a search for sword at http://www.biblegateway.com, but I'm not sure what verse you're referring to.

[Rlh04d]

"Turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with physical violence. In those days getting verbally insulted was a "slap on the cheek". So that passage means we are not to trade insult for insult. Jesus also told his disciples to take a sword with them for protection from robbers. Loving your enemy doesn't mean allowing them to physically assault you.

Of course it means allowing them to physically assault you. He allowed them to kill him.

Jesus may have told his disciples to buy a sword, but he never told them to use it. And his teaching was clear by his sacrifice. He lived his life to be an example to others -- being a Christian is about following Jesus' actions as well as words. If you can honestly imagine Jesus picking up a sword and killing someone, regardless of the circumstances, I don't know what book you read.

[Rlh04d]

I just want to clarify my last post in case it didn't come off as hoped. I respect the views of certain denominations and their belief that one should never defend oneself with any sort of violence. But I did take exception to your statement that essentially said that anyone who doesn't believe that is a fake Christian. There are multiple times in the Bible where soldiers were commended for their faith and not told to leave their profession and lay down their arms. Many of the non violence talk came to an individual basis and had nothing to do with the armies of the world. Jesus never addressed such issues directly but by not condemning the soldiers and their profession seems to state that it's an honorable enough profession as long as it's not used to extort or abuse. You can check out Matthew 8 or a number of examples in Acts. In Luke 22 Jesus even instructs his disciples that the'll need swords in the future. And then there's Romans 13 which he instructs Christians to submit to the government that bears the sword and is charged with punishing evildoers.

I will agree that we aren't to seek out war and violence, but that armies are necessary and do not stand against God or the teachings or Jesus. Using violence as simple vengeance and whatnot is another matter, but soldiers and war and the defense of others isn't against the teachings or inherently non-Christian.

I agree that armies are necessary, but I do not agree that it is reflected in any way by the teachings or actions of Jesus.

Being pragmatic is great for you and I, but Jesus clearly transcended pragmatism. Nothing he did was about being pragmatic.

As for whether or not following Jesus' teaching makes you a "fake Christian" ... I guess that depends. There are a lot of people who do it so often and to such a great degree that I'm not even sure how they justify calling themselves Christians, personally. I'm not smart enough to say where the line is of how many times you can clearly refuse to follow the teachings of Jesus before you should be considered a "fake Christian." Only God Himself will determine whether you are a "true" Christian or not.

[Dave Stalwart]

Hey, remember how Jesus died?

Of course it means allowing them to physically assault you. He allowed them to kill him.

Jesus may have told his disciples to buy a sword, but he never told them to use it. And his teaching was clear by his sacrifice. He lived his life to be an example to others -- being a Christian is about following Jesus' actions as well as words. If you can honestly imagine Jesus picking up a sword and killing someone, regardless of the circumstances, I don't know what book you read.

Jesus has one enemy. When he teaches to turn other cheek in our lives, it is a teaching about how to show his kind of love to this world and being a humble reflection of him. It is a way of being not of this world. Setting your worldview above what men can do to you.

I can honestly imagine Jesus dealing violently and decisively with his one enemy. He is not turning his cheek to that enemy. It's important to keep perspective. He was teaching about what we are to do in order to please him and reflect his heart for men. His dealings with his enemies are very clear....

[Rlh04d]

I did a search for sword at http://www.biblegateway.com, but I'm not sure what verse you're referring to.

Luke 22:36

My understanding of that verse is that it refers to Jesus' attempt to appear to be a dangerous revolutionary to the Jewish authorities in order to force their hand to follow the script he was given. Which is basically what he points to in the very next verse:

“It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”(vs. 37)

As I recall, when Peter used one of his swords to actually protect Jesus from the guards and cut off one of their ears, Jesus rebuked his use of the sword, healed the guard, and then delivered the line:

"Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (26:51-52; Mark 14:47).

You will never be able to make an argument for Jesus actually believing in the benefit of violence. It's sad that anyone would even argue that.

[Rlh04d]

I can honestly imagine Jesus dealing violently and decisively with his one enemy.

Your point seems faulty. Are you implying that Jesus couldn't deal violently and decisively with his enemy if he chose to? That somehow the devil is beyond his reach?

The very idea of the existence of the devil would imply that Jesus has chosen to not deal violently and decisively with him. Anything less questions the power of God Himself. If He is all powerful, then the devil only exists by His charity. Which means he has chosen not to deal with even him violently.

[Dave Stalwart]

Your point seems faulty. Are you implying that Jesus couldn't deal violently and decisively with his enemy if he chose to? That somehow the devil is beyond his reach?

The very idea of the existence of the devil would imply that Jesus has chosen to not deal violently and decisively with him. Anything less questions the power of God Himself. If He is all powerful, then the devil only exists by His charity. Which means he has chosen not to deal with even him violently.

Yet

[Rlh04d]

Yet

Fair ;)

So I guess we can agree that Jesus' actions imply that you should wait at least 2013 years before dealing with your enemy violently.

[Dave Stalwart]

Fair ;)

So I guess we can agree that Jesus' actions imply that you should wait at least 2013 years before dealing with your enemy violently.

Haha yes I suppose so

[1979Shocker]

In Luke 22 Jesus even instructs his disciples that the'll need swords in the future.

I assume you're referring to verse 37 where he says if you don't have a sword to sell your garment to buy one. To get the context we need to start with verse 35.

³⁵ And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

Jesus is reminding them what he told them back in Luke 10:1-12 when he gave instructions to the seventy before sending them out. Specifically verse 4 states:

⁴ Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road.

When he sent them out with nothing, that would include no swords. So that is what he's reminding them of in Luke 22:35. In verse 37 we have the reason for the swords, which was to fulfill what was written. He quotes Isaiah 53:12. Here are verses 36-37.

³⁶ Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. ³⁷ For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”

Verse 38, they have the swords.

³⁸ So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

After the real Lord's Prayer in verses 39-45, we have the betrayal in verses 47-48. Then in verses 49-50, we have a sword being used.

⁴⁹ When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” ⁵⁰ And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.

After Jesus heals the high priest's ear and tells the ones that came there to arrest him that it is now their hour, he is arrested like a common criminal. And what did criminals usually have back then? A sword. That's why he said two swords were enough. He had to be 'numbered with the transgressors" as if he was a transgressor.

So this has nothing to do with using swords (or guns) in the future.

[Rlh04d]

I assume you're referring to verse 37 where he says if you don't have a sword to sell your garment to buy one. To get the context we need to start with verse 35.

Jesus is reminding them what he told them back in Luke 10:1-12 when he gave instructions to the seventy before sending them out. Specifically verse 4 states:

When he sent them out with nothing, that would include no swords. So that is what he's reminding them of in Luke 22:35. In verse 37 we have the reason for the swords, which was to fulfill what was written. He quotes Isaiah 53:12. Here are verses 36-37.

Verse 38, they have the swords.

After the real Lord's Prayer in verses 39-45, we have the betrayal in verses 47-48. Then in verses 49-50, we have a sword being used.

After Jesus heals the high priest's ear and tells the ones that came there to arrest him that it is now their hour, he is arrested like a common criminal. And what did criminals usually have back then? A sword. That's why he said two swords were enough. He had to be 'numbered with the transgressors" as if he was a transgressor.

So this has nothing to do with using swords (or guns) in the future.

Well said. That was my understanding, although I'd forgotten the exact context.

[Kung Wu]

I would just like to point out that Jesus can walk on water and heal himself. That pretty much makes him the ultimate Frenchman with plus +80 hit points and +80 speed on defense.

[wu_shizzle]

If you believe in Christian pacifism you have some problems following it to it's logical end.

Paul gives a reminder of the role of government in Romans 13:

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

If you believe in pacifism you have to believe that believers have no role in governing, when Paul clearly states that these institutions are established by God himself.

Another question asked by Christians is "Doesn't having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?" Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15) Those who trust God work for a living. 1 Timothy 5:8:

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse that an unbeliever."

For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was "trusting God" would actually be to defy God. King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hand for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1). The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.

Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family's defense would be to defy God. There is an additional concern to taking the position that "I don't need to arm myself. God will protect me."

At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'" (Matthew 4:7) It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has clearly allowed for.