When is violence okay for a Christian?

[Glenn P]

Hi Theonomy!

"P.S. What's with all these italics?" Emphasis - I only used 'em once!
Later!

it seems to be fixed now, but for some reason all of these posts including my own were entirely in italics. Weird.... they look normal now.

[lightmanx5]

It just looks obvious that the justification for His actions is easily provided when He tells them what they are doing is wrong - they are turning God's house into a den of robbers. That's enough reason.

Then it is both. Justification is found in their wrong doings, and because he is the Son of God.

If that's true, and these events did not occur in the same order in the events descirbed in Matthe and Luke, then it is very clear indeed that Jesus did not say this to justify standing up to the evil people in the temple, since they would not even have occured in sequence like that.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, so I must have miscommunicated it to you. I was saying that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke the event of Jesus cleansing the temple occurs towards the end of his ministry, chronologically. In John, it appears towards the beginning of his ministry, chronologically.

[...] you are claiming that Jesus laid down a moral precept that governs right behaviour by saying that we must never stand up to an evil person, even though jesus Himself did this.

[...]

Now, can you provide a reason why it is not sinful for Jesus to resist evil people, but it would be sinful for us?

I'm not convinced that this situation is a case of him standing up against evil, as we know it in the Engilsh language. I've not studied the original language enough to know (yet).

But, if I concede to that fact, I still don't find myself able to justify violence by saying that Jesus did it, so can I. Jesus died on the cross for the world's sins, and so can I... oh wait. The fact remains that we can never be Jesus.

So, I am, personally, ok with the fact that Jesus says, "Don't do this," and then does it. More importantly, he says to do something... "Love your neighbor as yourself," and he must have been able to do that in the John 2 account (as well as the others) somehow, as we both agree that he was/is sinless. (Unless Jesus, being fully God, was allowed to hate people? Related: Romans 9:13)

why would this mean never physically defending myself? Or are you starting out by assuming that this is evil?

I have come to understand, from my study of Scriptures this year, that Jesus told his followers to carry a sword... but not to defend themselves. He told them to carry a sword, so that when the opportunity came for them to assert their position, they would follow Christ's example (Philippians 2, the Kenosis) and give up their rights.

My temporal "right" is to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." But when does my right get in the way of your right? When I assert my position. Now I've encroached upon your life, your liberty, and your happiness.

But if we take into consideration eternal consequences, I think it would be better to lose my life than to assert my right to temporal things.

So is going to a doctor when I am sick. Is this wicked too?

I think that if you feel led to go to a doctor when you're sick, then that's your conviction. But, if you're convicted to have your church elders come and pray over you, and annoint you with oil, having faith that God will heal you, then that is your conviction.

Is it good to let this man become a successful attacker? Or is it better to cause Him to be prevented? I think the latter is good, and the former is not. How about you?

I think it would be good to prevent him from attacking. But, I would try to find a way to do that in such a way that I satisfy the three verses I keep quoting.

[Dracula Girl]

According to me ? Matthew 5:38-39 (link) (NCV) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't stand up against an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also." I don't know how you can justify saying that's according to me when all I'm doing is saying here's what Scripture says.

Well, as I understand, right now you are also saying, “If someone slaps you[r neighbor] on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also” for you would never act to change that.

1 Corinthians 10:33 (NASB)

just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

This verse really touches on why we should do good to all people: "so that they may be saved."

Yes, can you preach to a corpse?

And does it do more good to be kind to an unmerciful one who is not your neighbor at the cost of many who are your neighbors, even to the cost of many lives? Is that really seeking the profit of the many, so that they may be saved? Failing to stop it although lives are ended and souls perish because to use force is more wrong than enacting the minimal amount, yet if needed then used, violence to stop it. Love seeks the good of many, not just the one who would harm.

Proverbs 27:5

Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed.

You see, this non-resistance that I'm speaking of is not "doing nothing."

Bravo. But there are times when it is not enough.

Matthew 6:1-4
But I see no charitable deed in letting my best friend get raped over and over again while I stand by and watch without action?

from Matthew 5:38-48 "[...] don't stand up against an evil person."
from Romans 12:17-21,13:8-10 "[...] overcome evil with good."
from Galatians 6:9-10 "[...] do good to all people [...]"

We must, as Christians, satisfy the prerequisites for all three of these.

What you list are not prerequisites. Love is.

Romans 13:9-10

9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

So maybe you are going to say that the axe murderer killing your family is your neighbor too so you should show him the same kind of complete nonviolence while your family is brutally slaughtered by the guy who last night killed your neighbors? Is not the one who seeks to save life more merciful than the one who would have it destroyed?

Luke 10:25-37

25And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

26He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"

27So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,'[h] and "your neighbor as yourself."'[i]

28And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

29But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
…
36So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"

37And he said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

2 Corinthians 8:21 (CEV)

But we want to do what pleases the Lord and what people think is right.

Romans 13:8

8Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.

These verses are in the Bible, and cannot be ignored.

Romans 12:9

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

So, if you believe you can satisfy each of these things in your actions, then I believe you are justified in following your convictions.

[Teallaura]

it seems to be fixed now, but for some reason all of these posts including my own were entirely in italics. Weird.... they look normal now.

Whew! I thought there was some anti-italics police or something!
Later!

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: I would ask, "If we are doing God's will, will God stand by, will he not do what he expects us to do, and deliver the oppressed?"

Joan of Arc: I’m a little lost on what you are saying here.

Sorry that wasn't clear, here is another try: God tells us to deliver the oppressed. Now if we obey his will, and are about to be oppressed, will God not follow his own instruction, and deliver us?

Glenn: Is it good to let this man become a successful attacker? Or is it better to cause Him to be prevented?

This assumes he will be successful, though, if the person being attacked does not resist. That is the problem with hypothetical situations, maybe we should consider countries where people are being persecuted, where they do not resist their persecutors with force in response to force.

The reports I have heard are both miracles, and martyrdoms, and in both cases, I believe there is God's deliverance.

"Richard Wurmbrand, in his book 'Tortured for Christ', p. 105

It must be understood that there are no nominal, half-hearted, lukewarm Christians in … China. The price Christians pay is far too great. The next point to remember is that persecution has always produced a better Christian--a witnessing Christian, a soul-winning Christian. Communist persecution has backfired and produced serious, dedicated Christians such as are rarely seen in free lands. These people cannot understand how anyone can be a Christian and not want to win every soul they meet.

© source where applicable

J.P. Holding: The "slap on the cheek" is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not a license to allow yourself to get beat up.

Jesus said more than just this example, though. Is suing a person also an insult? Or a Roman soldier forcing you to go one mile? Or someone asking for something from you?

And Jesus did actually let people beat him up, did he not? And he also said "Don't weep for me."

Philippians 2:5-9 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: ... he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him...

Blessings,
Lee

[lightmanx5]

Well, as I understand, right now you are also saying, “If someone slaps you[r neighbor] on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also” for you would never act to change that.

If I saw a Christian being slapped and about to retaliate, I would admonish them (the slapped, not the person who slapped them) with Matthew 5:38-39.

Yes, can you preach to a corpse?

I don't know what you are saying, "Yes," to. No, you can't preach to a corpse, why do you ask?

[...] Love seeks the good of many, not just the one who would harm.

I agree. Except on the point that we are to good to all people, not just the minimal amount, or the majority.

And does it do more good to be kind to an unmerciful one who is not your neighbor at the cost of many who are your neighbors, even to the cost of many lives?

Basically, everyone is my neighbor. Or, am I reading the story of the Good Samaritan incorrectly? (They ask Jesus, "Who is my neighbor," and he responds with that story.)



Proverbs 27:5

Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed.

I agree.

But there are times when it is not enough.

What are you referring to with your use of the word "it"?

[...] I see no charitable deed in letting my best friend get raped over and over again while I stand by and watch without action?

Again, the non-resistance I'm speaking of is not "doing nothing."

What you list are not prerequisites. Love is.

Love is, I agree. But, where is your qualm with those being things you must do? Is it purely semantiaclly? In other words, are you only disagreeing because I used the word prerequisite?

Those things are in the Bible. I submit myself to doing what the Bible instructs me to do.

Is not the one who seeks to save life more merciful than the one who would have it destroyed?

We Christians should be living life as though we are dead anyway. Dead to sin, and alive in Christ. If someone kills me, it's of little consequence to other believers (globally). But when an unbeliever dies... it's a much more sorrow-filled death because that person is destined for Hell.

What is eternally important? I'm promised eternal life. An unbeliever is not. If I die, I live! If an unbeliever dies... he's still dead.

[Glenn P]

Then it is both. Justification is found in their wrong doings, and because he is the Son of God.

Perhaps, but my argument remains intact that Matthew and Luke saw their evil deeds as a sufficient justification.

I'm not convinced that this situation is a case of him standing up against evil, as we know it in the Engilsh language. I've not studied the original language enough to know (yet).

The Greek reveals no moe than the english in this particula rinstance. But there are two plain facts. 1) These people were doing evil, and 2) Jesus stood up to them.

But, if I concede to that fact, I still don't find myself able to justify violence by saying that Jesus did it, so can I.

I did not introduce this example to prove that Jesus engaged in violence. I just used it as an example of Jesus standing up to evil. Remember, your usage of the prohibitio against standing up to evil would forbid this.

Jesus died on the cross for the world's sins, and so can I... oh wait. The fact remains that we can never be Jesus.

So, I am, personally, ok with the fact that Jesus says, "Don't do this," and then does it.

Can you think of any of Jesus' moral instructions, meant to show us a pattern of life to live by, which Jesus Himself refused to live by? I confess that I cannot.

More importantly, he says to do something... "Love your neighbor as yourself," and he must have been able to do that in the John 2 account (as well as the others) somehow, as we both agree that he was/is sinless. (Unless Jesus, being fully God, was allowed to hate people? Related: Romans 9:13)

Why do you believe that physically defending yourself against a person must be unloving? I have asked you at least twice why you think it is more loving to let a person succeed in attacking you than to prevent him from doing so, and I cnanot see that you have answered.

I have come to understand, from my study of Scriptures this year, that Jesus told his followers to carry a sword... but not to defend themselves. He told them to carry a sword, so that when the opportunity came for them to assert their position, they would follow Christ's example (Philippians 2, the Kenosis) and give up their rights.

Where do you see this in Scripture? We know what swords are used for, and Jesus told His disciples to take a purse and a sword. Was the purse to be used so that they could give up their right to buy food? Why this strange interpretation? It makes far more sense to see that He was telling them to take what they would need for their travels.

I think it would be good to prevent him from attacking. But, I would try to find a way to do that in such a way that I satisfy the three verses I keep quoting.

What I have been repeatedly saying is that physical self defense does not violate any of the verses you have shown us. It is not evil, and it does not violate the command to do good to all. It is not malicious, and it does not violate the command to love our neighbour. So what's the problem?

Glenn

[lightmanx5]

Philippians 2:5-11 (link)
In the Kenosis, we see that Jesus gives up his rights.

I have rights. I have rights granted to me by the United States of America. And I have rights granted to me by the Geoneva Convention.

But, when faced with reacting to (intended?) violence with violence (which is my right)... I am convicted not to retaliate (do not resist the evil man). But I I am convicted to defeat evil by doing good, and to do both of those in a manner such that I do good to all people.

And whoever it was that brought up love, yes. Love is the basis for all of this. I want to show love to all people, that all may be saved. And not through anything in particular that I do (because I am fallen), but through the work of the Holy Spirit.

[lightmanx5]

I have asked you at least twice why you think it is more loving to let a person succeed in attacking you than to prevent him from doing so, and I cnanot see that you have answered.

Well, first you asked:

Tell me what you think is better for a person: For him to become a person who succeeds in assaulting and harming an innocent, or to fail to do so because someone physically prevents him.

And I answered:

Neither. If you read the three verses that I quoted (much) earlier (at this point), we must succeed in doing all three things in each situation.

Then you said:

Neither is not an option, since these two are mutually exclusive. Either we prevent the attack form being successful, or we do not. Please tell me: which option does the most good to the attcker? I think the answer is clear, but I want to you answer it.

To which I answered:

We do whichever satisfies the Scripture, and the Holy Spirit, as he has taught each of us. For me that would be to overcome evil by doing good (to all people).

Then you said:

Amen and Amen! But [...] Is it good to let this man become a successful attacker? Or is it better to cause Him to be prevented? I think the latter is good, and the former is not. How about you?

And I said:

I think it would be good to prevent him from attacking. But, I would try to find a way to do that in such a way that I satisfy the three verses I keep quoting.

Which has led us to:

I have asked you at least twice why you think it is more loving to let a person succeed in attacking you than to prevent him from doing so, and I cnanot see that you have answered.

If I've not misquoted us, then where is the confusion?

Where do you see this in Scripture?

Luke 22:35-38 (link)

We know what swords are used for, and Jesus told His disciples to take a purse and a sword.

Yes, and we saw how Jesus reacted when Peter used his sword in the garden on the night of his arrest. His telling his disciples to carry a sword was different than he had previously instructed them. He even mentions it here (Luke 22:35-36).

Jesus put the entire world before himself. And here we are, finding it difficult to put one person before ourselves. We'd rather assert our rights over that persons.

What I have been repeatedly saying is that physical self defense does not violate any of the verses you have shown us. It is not evil, and it does not violate the command to do good to all. It is not malicious, and it does not violate the command to love our neighbour. So what's the problem?

I don't know that to be true. (In other words, I disagree.)

January 1, 2004, I began to read my Bible each morning, studying what it says in there... and all this year (now that it is about to come to a close ) I've been a student of God's Word and have been taught by Holy Spirit. (Luke 12:12, John 14:26) I believe that God works for the good of those who love him.

So, do you believe that He could have taught you and I differently? And if so, is it really so hard to believe that you believe you can satisfy the three verses in your self-defence and I cannot? And then, would it be so hard to believe that you would feel a sinner if you were to do what I believe God is asking me to do?

[wanboredlatino]

I don't know that to be true. (In other words, I disagree.)

January 1, 2004, I began to read my Bible each morning, studying what it says in there... and all this year (now that it is about to come to a close ) I've been a student of God's Word and have been taught by Holy Spirit. (Luke 12:12, John 14:26) I believe that God works for the good of those who love him.

So, do you believe that He could have taught you and I differently? And if so, is it really so hard to believe that you believe you can satisfy the three verses in your self-defence and I cannot? And then, would it be so hard to believe that you would feel a sinner if you were to do what I believe God is asking me to do?

I can't tell if you are saying that any bad thing that happens to a person is directly related to that person's lack of loving God. Did you mean that?

[Teallaura]

January 1, 2004, I began to read my Bible each morning, studying what it says in there... and all this year (now that it is about to come to a close ) I've been a student of God's Word and have been taught by Holy Spirit. (Luke 12:12, John 14:26) I believe that God works for the good of those who love him.

So, do you believe that He could have taught you and I differently? And if so, is it really so hard to believe that you believe you can satisfy the three verses in your self-defence and I cannot? And then, would it be so hard to believe that you would feel a sinner if you were to do what I believe God is asking me to do?

Hi!
You are taking your personal conviction and applying it to all believers. That's where it needs support. No one is arguing that there aren't times in which we are called to 'turn the other cheek' (Incidentally, as I understand it, this is from a colloquialism that refers to being offended, not being assaulted) - most especially in defense of the Faith. But you are applying it to all violence of all types in all circumstances. You applied 'Do not resist an evil person' at first literally (not at all) and then you modified it to "not resist isn't not doing anything' which is contradictory to the first position (You can't both literally not resist at all and then do something. You can't have 'em both. Resistance is futile! - sorry, it was too good to pass up!).
Jesus rebukes Peter all right - but He doesn't say 'no violence ever' but 'I have plenty of angels to defend Me if I choose to call them'.

You're applying Scripture so that a believer is obligated to stand there and die (when run isn't an option) in all circumstances. You used the example of martyrdom - a valid exercise of the principle involved, but you don't seem to understand that we aren't addressing persecution per se. If I'm a big strong man (Ha ha ha ha! Not even close!) and I and a small little girl (not my daughter) are walking down the street and an armed assailant jumps out to rob and kill us both, I have the potential to defend not only myself but to protect another as well. If I stand there and let him kill me (or run away which is a valid option as a believer, but I can run faster than she can), I've also stood there to let him kill her. This does not edify the believer nor lead the non-believer to repentance. The murderer will walk away simply convinced I was a gutless coward - he will know nothing of my religious convictions. I sincerely hope her parents never find out why I did that - repentance will not be on their list of things to do ever if they do.

I admire those pacifists who apply Scripture so literally to themselves - but in requiring
all believers to see those passages in the same way in all circumstances you need to show why - you haven't done that in any specific we pointed out and in a few you come off sounding cold blooded about the suffering of others. 'Turn the other cheek' does not mean 'permit sexual sin on your person'. If I permit myself to be raped (not if it is forced where clearly no sin occurs) by not resisting (when it is possible) am I not guilty of adultery?

[lightmanx5]

I can't tell if you are saying that any bad thing that happens to a person is directly related to that person's lack of loving God. Did you mean that?

I have no idea where you got that from... sorry

[Glenn P]

If I've not misquoted us, then where is the confusion?

Very well then, this principle must be true: It is more good and more loving to physically prevent a person from attacking me than to allow him. Pacificism therefore cannot be called the more loving option. This plank is removed from the case for pacifism.

Yes, and we saw how Jesus reacted when Peter used his sword in the garden on the night of his arrest. His telling his disciples to carry a sword was different than he had previously instructed them. He even mentions it here (Luke 22:35-36).

How does this answer the argument? It's pretty obvious that Jesus had a clear reason for not resisting His arrest. If He did resist, the atonement would not take place. And the pasage you cite - Luke 22:35-36 is simply devastating to your position on jesus' instructions about carrying a sword.

Scripture Verse:

35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

"Nothing," they answered.

36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

The last time Jesus sent them out, they went with none of the basic provisions, and this time, He tells them to take the basic provisions, including a bag (which they were to use), a purse (which they were to use), and a sword (which they were to use). When you read this, you should really be saying "woops, I guess Jesus allowed physical self defense after all."

Jesus put the entire world before himself. And here we are, finding it difficult to put one person before ourselves. We'd rather assert our rights over that persons.

Now it's time for me to use your line - but we aren't Jesus! Jesus put the world before Himself by giving His life for our atonement. Surely you don't think we're capable of the same! And defending ourself against a person is not asserting our rights over another person's rights, because another person simply doesn;t have the right to attack us.

January 1, 2004, I began to read my Bible each morning, studying what it says in there... and all this year (now that it is about to come to a close ) I've been a student of God's Word and have been taught by Holy Spirit. (Luke 12:12, John 14:26) I believe that God works for the good of those who love him.

What? So that's the reason you won't budge? because you thgink God directly told you this Himself? Well then what's the use in me even discussing it with you? When a person believes that God has spoken to Him and given Him infallible knowledge on something, nothing, even biblical arguments, will persuade him.

So, do you believe that He could have taught you and I differently?

No, I do not.

This question must be settled in Scriptural grounds. And there is no strong biblical case against physical self defense. Because I will not allow my conscience to be bound by another man's opinion, and because I love others, especially my family, and because I am assured that there is no good, no love, nothing righteous, in allowing somebody to attack or kill me or somebody else, I will continue to do what God permits. I will use physical force to defend myself and others whenever it is necessary - which hopefully is not often.

Glenn

[lightmanx5]

You are taking your personal conviction and applying it to all believers.

My stance is that I've been studying Scriptures this year (er... last year, now) and have found these things to be true. I've come here to have them tested by Scripture, because I must submit to what the Scriptures say. And as revealed to me through the type of things everyone's writing back, I haven't been able to explain my position very well. And everyone, for some reason, always thinks I'm talking about a non-resistance that is do nothing.

But if I do nothing, I fail to actively do good to all people and defeat evil by doing good. If I only defeat evil, and I don't use good, then I've failed in all three. If I do good to only those who love me, then I've failed in all three again.

I admire those pacifists who apply Scripture so literally to themselves [...]

I pray that if I'm ever put in a situation like all these we've been coming up with, that my actions will be Spirit led. And as I continue to worship God 24/7, I'll be able to know what God wants for me, and what is good and pleasing to him, and what is perfect. (Romans 12:2)

[...] in a few you come off sounding cold blooded about the suffering of others.

I'm sorry, which few?

[lightmanx5]

It is more good and more loving to physically prevent a person from attacking me than to allow him.

I disagree in the case where 'physical' means violence.

Pacificism therefore cannot be called the more loving option. This plank is removed from the case for pacifism.

I think you have a preconceived notion of what Pacificsm is... I don't subscribe to the meanings of labels, and I barely know what pacificsm means. I only know what I've been laying out here, I don't know what to call it, except "non-resistance as I know it." I don't know that I've been making a case for pacificsm.

if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

The cloak was a right, back then. I think they call it a 'lean.' So, if you made someone a promise, you'd give them your cloak. And now they have something that they can hold against you, if you don't fulfill your promise. They have a lean.

I still have this understanding to carry a sword, but don't use it.

[...] you thgink God directly told you this Himself?

Not audibly, no... but did you read those verses?

[...] what's the use in me even discussing it with you? When a person believes that God has spoken to Him and given Him infallible knowledge on something, nothing, even biblical arguments, will persuade him.

I do not mean to frustrate you. I do think there is use in discussing it: for if I'm wrong, if I'm indeed doing the opposite of what I should be doing, that's missing the mark, and that's sin. And I would like to be corrected. I don't believe I have infallible knowledge, as my knowledge has changed since the beginning of 2004 to the end, and my maturity followed. Likewise my understanding of the entirety of Scripture changed and matured. The viewpoints I once found so important came crashing down when I was faced with the reality of Scripture.

The problem I see here, is that you have one understanding of the Scriptures and I have another on the same Scripture. I say that a Scripture supports my current understand, and you say that it's against my understanding.

Thank you for spending so much time with me on this subject.

I will not allow my conscience to be bound by another man's opinion[...]

Likewise. I hope that both our consciences are bound by the Holy Spirit and by our knowledge of Scripture.