Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines

This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.

If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Self defense - and James 5:6

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

  • Self defense - and James 5:6

    Steve Gregg has an interesting and balanced write-up on the ethics of self defense here: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_resistance.php

    I have held to the position that self defense to save one's life does not violate the gist of the Sermon on the Mount because Jesus spoke of issues of personal offense, insult and inconvenience, and not of actual danger. However, Gregg points out that early Christians did seem to interpret this to even include personal injury. He cites James 5:6 as one such example (noting that the NIV translation obscures the meaning). He also cited some early church fathers, though I am not sure how representative they are of all Christian thought at the time on the issue. (Gregg does believe it is acceptable to personally defend others who are being attacked.)

    It seems unclear to me what James 5:6 is actually referring to. It could even refer to the death of Jesus. What do you all think?

    (This is not intended to be a post about pacifism and the ethics of war in general. They are separate issues. In fact, my understanding is that some early Christians believed that war was justifiable for the Christian but not personal self defense.)
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    Also, before anybody brings it up, I don't think that Jesus telling his disciples to buy swords settles the issue. There is a strong argument that the reason they were bought was not for self defense but to precipitate the arrest of Jesus.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      Source: James 5:6 NRSV

      You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you.

      © Copyright Original Source



      My Jewish Annotated New Testament provides this cross-reference:

      Source: Wisd. 2:10-20

      10 Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow or regard the gray hairs of the aged. 11 But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless. 12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,
      because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

      © Copyright Original Source



      The text is speaking of the ungodly, whereas James is speaking of the [ungodly] rich. I think, however, that it is closer to the intent of James than the idea that he is saying that the righteous do not resist the ungodly. AFAICS, that the righteous do not resist in this scenario is in no way intended to imply that the righteous should not resist; the fact that the righteous do not resist in the text merely intensifies the wrongdoing of the rich.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        The text is speaking of the ungodly, whereas James is speaking of the [ungodly] rich. I think, however, that it is closer to the intent of James than the idea that he is saying that the righteous do not resist the ungodly. AFAICS, that the righteous do not resist in this scenario is in no way intended to imply that the righteous should not resist; the fact that the righteous do not resist in the text merely intensifies the wrongdoing of the rich.
        This reference is very helpful; thanks.
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #5
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            The New Testament testifies to many troubles in Judea and the broader Roman Empire. So it seems that certain rich people wielded much power -- even over people's lives. One example of a wrongful killing was that of Stephen. It seems the rulers didn't pay much attention. Also, if someone was not at least of Roman citizenship (or higher status), there was very little concern by the rulers about doing any investigation who the murderer was.

            Thus James could be talking about the general reputation of rich people or could even be talking about what some rich people did, among his recipients, before they became Christians. (In James 2 there also seemed to be a tendency to give special honor to the rich. James was quite adamant against such behavior.)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              Also, before anybody brings it up, I don't think that Jesus telling his disciples to buy swords settles the issue. There is a strong argument that the reason they were bought was not for self defense but to precipitate the arrest of Jesus.
              I would like to see the "strong argument".

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                Also, before anybody brings it up, I don't think that Jesus telling his disciples to buy swords settles the issue. There is a strong argument that the reason they were bought was not for self defense but to precipitate the arrest of Jesus.
                Representing the consensus of a number of exegetical scholars of the Greek New Testament, from Luke 9:51― 24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, VOLUME 2: Baker Academic, 1996), by Darrel L. Bock (via Accordance)
                22:36. Jesus’ departure changes the outward circumstances of the disciples’ ministry. The contrastive ἀλλὰ νῦν (alla nyn, but now) indicates that a change has come. Rather than leaving behind purse, bag, and sword, they are now to take such items. They will now have to provide for themselves. Those who have extra clothes (ἱμάτιον, himation; BAGD 376 §2; BAA 764 §2; the outer garment, cloak, or robe) need to sell them to buy a sword.

                The syntax is disputed, especially the connection of ὁ ἔχων (ho echōn, the one who has) to ὁ μὴ ἔχων (ho mē echōn, the one who does not have). Are these ideas parallel? There are three main options (Fitzmyer 1985: 1431–32, who also notes another minor option):

                1. “Purse” (βαλλάντιον, ballantion) and “knapsack” (πήραν, pēran) are the objects of both participles (Fitzmyer 1985: 1428, 1431; Plummer 1896: 505). The first exhortation refers to taking purse and knapsack, so parallelism dictates that the subject of the second exhortation also lacks purse and knapsack: “The one who has a purse had better carry it; and his knapsack too. If one does not have them, he must sell his cloak and buy a sword” (Fitzmyer’s translation).

                2. “Sword” (μάχαιρα, machaira) is the object of both participles. The second exhortation refers to taking a sword, so parallelism dictates that the subject of the first exhortation has a sword. Jesus simply commands those who have a sword to also get a purse and bag, while those who lack a sword need to sell a mantle in order to get one (Schneider 1977a: 454–55). Either way, one should be sure to have a sword, a point that differs only in focus from view 3.

                3. “Sword” is tied only to the second exhortation. One is to take all three items—purse, knapsack, and sword: “If you have a [Luke 9:51–24:53, p. 1,747] purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (NIV; RSV is similar).

                Regardless of the solution, the force is that one should now have full provision (Marshall 1978: 825 and Grundmann 1963: 409 are uncertain which view is correct). View 3 has the most natural force, since it involves the fewest ellipses. So in contrast to the former instructions for mission, full provision is now required.

                In the next verse Jesus will develop the implications of this remark by citing a Scripture that describes his rejection. The point is that the world has made its decision about Jesus, so those who follow him had better be prepared to be treated similarly. Disciples are to engage the world, but they will have to take care of themselves. Neyrey (1985: 40–43) rightly sees two events as commentary on this verse: Jesus’ rebuke of the use of a sword against the high priest’s servant (22:49–51) and the church’s nonviolent response to persecution in the Book of Acts (4:25–31; 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). In fact, Acts 4:25–31 shows the church armed only with prayer and faith in God. Luke 22:36 sees the sword as only a symbol of preparation for pressure, since Jesus’ rebuke of a literal interpretation (22:38) shows that a symbol is meant (Fitzmyer 1985: 1432; Marshall 1978: 825). It points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge (Nolland 1993b: 1076).

                .......

                22:38. The disciples take Jesus’ remark literally and take an inventory of swords: they have two. Μάχαιραι (machairai) refers to the swords that men frequently wore (m. Šab. 6.4; BAGD 496; BAA 1005). The disciples are ready to go to battle and in fact will soon use a sword on the priest’s servant (22:49–50)—damage that Jesus must repair. Here Jesus simply stops the discussion by saying “it is enough” (ἱκανόν ἐστιν, hikanon estin)—perhaps a Semitic expression that means he is dismissing the topic. Whatever Jesus wanted to say, he drops because of the disciples’ misunderstanding. On this somber note the discourse ends.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  Also, before anybody brings it up, I don't think that Jesus telling his disciples to buy swords settles the issue. There is a strong argument that the reason they were bought was not for self defense but to precipitate the arrest of Jesus.
                  How could that be? The arrest took place before the disciples had the opportunity to carry out the command. Here is another explanation:

                  https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/20...e-other-cheek/

                  The meaning of James 5:6 is clearer if you read it in context:
                  Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.
                  (James 5:1-6 ESV)
                  The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
                  Leonard Ravenhill

                  https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/

                  Comment

                  widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                  Working...
                  X