Nonresistance

[EricH]

Jesus explained to His disciples WHY indeed He wanted them to purchase a sword.

Jesus knew in advance that two swords would not be enough to defend him. Had Jesus wanted real protection, he surely would have asked that all his disciples be armed.

If none of his disciples had a sword, Jesus would not have been able to say, put away your sword.

Having two swords was sufficient, Jesus was then able to imply, you have a sword, but don’t use it, even to defend me.

This is my understanding of, 'Why'.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Jesus knew in advance that two swords would not be enough to defend him. Had Jesus wanted real protection, he surely would have asked that all his disciples be armed.

If none of his disciples had a sword, Jesus would not have been able to say, put away your sword.

Having two swords was sufficient, Jesus was then able to imply, you have a sword, but don’t use it, even to defend me.

This is my understanding of, 'Why'.

I'm not sure if I understand your point.

The amount of armament was not the issue with Jesus'command. He had no reason to call them to defend Him from His destiny in obedience to the Father. They were provided what was necessary to complete their training and assistance with Jesus before the cross. Now He knew His time was come to leave them for the cross. John 16:1-7

After that, there would be plenty of perils.
Today there are also plenty of dangers. The latest example in my life was demonstrated by the Lord allowing a thief to try to breach my house. He was armed and dangerous. My doors held up to the prying levers and chopping / breaching tool. The Lord was my protection. He would also have protected me had the guy succeeded chopping his way through the door and I would have taken action and stopped him.

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"
Psalm 144
Genesis 14:20
"And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand."

I don't see the disciples having been told to buy the swords having anything to do with protecting Jesus. I believe it was Jesus telling them to protect themselves because He was going to the cross. There was nothing to add to that.
There would be no millennial Kingdom of peace yet.

 

[HopeinHim98]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

@oyster67, I like what you brought up about following in the steps of Jesus who when He was reviled, reviled not again, etc. Do you think this may have more to do with being persecuted rather than defending yourself or others against someone who is threatening evil though? Here is a verse someone brought up to me not too long ago:
Proverbs 24:11-12
If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, And those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; Doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? And he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works?

 

[EricH]

Today there are also plenty of dangers. The latest example in my life was demonstrated by the Lord allowing a thief to try to breach my house. He was armed and dangerous. My doors held up to the prying levers and chopping / breaching tool. The Lord was my protection. He would also have protected me had the guy succeeded chopping his way through the door and I would have taken action and stopped him.

Sadly, we live in a crazy world, where violence almost seems the norm. I am pleased to hear you survived your ordeal unhurt.

I don't see the disciples having been told to buy the swords having anything to do with protecting Jesus. I believe it was Jesus telling them to protect themselves.

If Peter was protecting himself when he drew his sword, Jesus still rebuked him. Hours later, Peter denied knowing Jesus, Peter was not in a good place. Just my 2c, but I can’t image how Peter would justify using a sword again, even in self - defence.

I live in the UK, and I am really pleased most people don't own guns.

 

[oyster67]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

@oyster67, I like what you brought up about following in the steps of Jesus who when He was reviled, reviled not again, etc. Do you think this may have more to do with being persecuted rather than defending yourself or others against someone who is threatening evil though? Here is a verse someone brought up to me not too long ago:
Proverbs 24:11-12
If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, And those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; Doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? And he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works?

We generally do not refer to Solomon (OT) when establishing Church Doctrine. Christians are followers of Christ.

Matthew 5:38-41
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

We call the teachings of Jesus and the rest of the NT "the new and better way".

We are to warn and defend against spiritual dangers now. That is what all the OT events pointed to and why we study them.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5
3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds 5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

[QUOTE"EricH, post: 5075358, member: 323190"]Sadly, we live in a crazy world, where violence almost seems the norm. I am pleased to hear you survived your ordeal unhurt.

Thank you.
A new friend and I had just got done discussing martial arts that night. He asked about my background, which I had not thought about for a while. I am grateful that the Lord provided that pop quiz/ test.
I see what I need to work on and improve.
It was a self assessment and kick in the butt to get me more motivated.
Even with that, the Lord is our Shield and exceeding great reward.
My desire and part of my purpose in life is to pass along my skill sets so that others may benefit, receiving likewise advantage over wicked violent criminals intent on harming them. Saving lives by training them and souls by leading them to the Lord are two big long term goals.

That was not a coincidence either. The criminal and timing was God's special test for me. It was better than a belt test for rank because He provided me a real life scenario to serve multiple purposes. That's the instructions I think my Master was trying to get across to me, in general.

If Peter was protecting himself when he drew his sword, Jesus still rebuked him. Hours later, Peter denied knowing Jesus, Peter was not in a good place. Just my 2c, but I can’t image how Peter would justify using a sword again, even in self - defence.


I don't think I explained well enough. I Don't believe Jesus was telling His disciples to have swords for that event of the crucifixion.
Peter was definitely out of fellowship with Jesus. None of that event was a time to use a sword. Note though that the Lord never told him to get rid of it though. All people have the God given right to defend their families.

I live in the UK, and I am really pleased most people don't own guns.

I think I understand your position now. Thank you for explaining. Most of the world may share that too.
I have read that there is a lot of violence in the cities with other weapons there. Even here, maybe you'd be surprised to learn that firearms are only one of multiple types of weapons used in crimes. More often knives and blunt trauma weapons are used against the victims.
The guy who tried to break in had a stabbing weapon and also the equivalent of a battle axe. That's how a large dirt pick/ mattock is designed. It would go right through someone's chest and stick out the back. One swing makes contact, end of fight. The weight and momentum would be more than difficult to stop or redirect. It would be ten times harder to disarm than a baseball bat because of it's design. How does the average person deal with that?

A firearm is just another tool. It can be used in multiple ways. It can provide a longer range of engagement with the attacker. A person of lesser stature or skill is more often able to prevent the intruder/ murderer from carrying out their theft, and scaring them away. Most lawful uses of guns in self defense never results in shots fired.
A homeowner who has his castle should not be denied the means to defend it.
"A man's home is his castle doctrine." 99%+ Of the population have not had special training in various weapons defense. Most Americans who choose to defend against violent crimes depend on the lesser learning curve with certain firearms to defend their homes/ families.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Gojira]

I'm not sure if I understand your point.

The amount of armament was not the issue with Jesus'command. He had no reason to call them to defend Him from His destiny in obedience to the Father. They were provided what was necessary to complete their training and assistance with Jesus before the cross. Now He knew His time was come to leave them for the cross. John 16:1-7

After that, there would be plenty of perils.
Today there are also plenty of dangers. The latest example in my life was demonstrated by the Lord allowing a thief to try to breach my house. He was armed and dangerous. My doors held up to the prying levers and chopping / breaching tool. The Lord was my protection. He would also have protected me had the guy succeeded chopping his way through the door and I would have taken action and stopped him.

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"
Psalm 144
Genesis 14:20
"And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand."

I don't see the disciples having been told to buy the swords having anything to do with protecting Jesus. I believe it was Jesus telling them to protect themselves because He was going to the cross. There was nothing to add to that.
There would be no millennial Kingdom of peace yet.

Also, think of it this way: Imagine if all the disciples did have swords? It would look like Jesus was gathering a rebel force together, confirming the fears of the powers of the day.

But, that He told them to take the two says something about the use of violent self-defense. There is a time for war and a time for peace. The same God said that.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

[QUOTE"EricH, post: 5075358, member: 323190"]Sadly, we live in a crazy world, where violence almost seems the norm. I am pleased to hear you survived your ordeal unhurt.

Thank you.
A new friend and I had just got done discussing martial arts that night. He asked about my background, which I had not thought about for a while. I am grateful that the Lord provided that pop quiz/ test.
I see what I need to work on and improve.
It was a self assessment and kick in the butt to get me more motivated.
Even with that, the Lord is our Shield and exceeding great reward.
My desire and part of my purpose in life is to pass along my skill sets so that others may benefit, receiving likewise advantage over wicked violent criminals intent on harming them. Saving lives by training them and souls by leading them to the Lord are two big long term goals.

That was not a coincidence either. The criminal and timing was God's special test for me. It was better than a belt test for rank because He provided me a real life scenario to serve multiple purposes. That's the instructions I think my Master was trying to get across to me, in general.

If Peter was protecting himself when he drew his sword, Jesus still rebuked him. Hours later, Peter denied knowing Jesus, Peter was not in a good place. Just my 2c, but I can’t image how Peter would justify using a sword again, even in self - defence.


I don't think I explained well enough. I Don't believe Jesus was telling His disciples to have swords for that event of the crucifixion.
Peter was definitely out of fellowship with Jesus. None of that event was a time to use a sword. Note though that the Lord never told him to get rid of it though. All people have the God given right to defend their families.

I live in the UK, and I am really pleased most people don't own guns.

I think I understand your position now. Thank you for explaining. Most of the world may share that too.
I have read that there is a lot of violence in the cities with other weapons there. Even here, maybe you'd be surprised to learn that firearms are only one of multiple types of weapons used in crimes. More often knives and blunt trauma weapons are used against the victims.
The guy who tried to break in had a stabbing weapon and also the equivalent of a battle axe. That's how a large dirt pick/ mattock is designed. It would go right through someone's chest and stick out the back. One swing makes contact, end of fight. The weight and momentum would be more than difficult to stop or redirect. It would be ten times harder to disarm than a baseball bat because of it's design. How does the average person deal with that?

A firearm is just another tool. It can be used in multiple ways. It can provide a longer range of engagement with the attacker. A person of lesser stature or skill is more often able to prevent the intruder/ murderer from carrying out their theft, and scaring them away. Most lawful uses of guns in self defense never results in shots fired.
A homeowner who has his castle should not be denied the means to defend it.
"A man's home is his castle doctrine." 99%+ Of the population have not had special training in various weapons defense. Most Americans who choose to defend against violent crimes depend on the lesser learning curve with certain firearms to defend their homes/ families.

[/QUOTE]


Also to add to your post, some soldiers asked Jesus....

Luke 3:14
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Notice that the Lord Jesus didn't say "Quit your occupation as a soldier since that requires using a sword (or whatever weapon) and having to fight". His only reply was "don't extort money or accuse people falsely."

-=<❤>=-

Also in terms of rape - a woman really should resist - scream at least for help and hopefully someone will come by and stop that rapist from continuing to violate her. But even if no one was around, the Bible says to resist.

Deuteronomy 22
3 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Seriously, I'd rather die because I'm screaming for help than to let them continue to violate me without any resistance. And I'd also try to leave evidence of what happened.

-=<❤>=-

Also, it's right to defend helpless children if something terrible is being done to them. That goes without explanation.

❧

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Also, think of it this way: Imagine if all the disciples did have swords? It would look like Jesus was gathering a rebel force together, confirming the fears of the powers of the day.

But, that He told them to take the two says something about the use of violent self-defense. There is a time for war and a time for peace. The same God said that.

That's a interesting perspective on the number.
Concerning the Roman occupation, do you think they allowed the carry of swords?

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Also to add to your post, some soldiers asked Jesus....

Luke 3:14
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Notice that the Lord Jesus didn't say "Quit your occupation as a soldier since that requires using a sword (or whatever weapon) and having to fight". His only reply was "don't extort money or accuse people falsely."

-=<❤>=-

Also in terms of rape - a woman really should resist - scream at least for help and hopefully someone will come by and stop that rapist from continuing to violate her. But even if no one was around, the Bible says to resist.

Deuteronomy 22
3 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Seriously, I'd rather die because I'm screaming for help than to let them continue to violate me without any resistance. And I'd also try to leave evidence of what happened.

-=<❤>=-

Also, it's right to defend helpless children if something terrible is being done to them. That goes without explanation.

❧[/QUOTE]
You are looking beyond the denominational limitations that I have heard too many preachers express. It is a gross insult to any woman who has been raped, physically assaulted or her baby murdered to throw
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 into her face, as if she should not do anything but submit to violence against herself and child.

3"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds."

That's a wonderful passage, but bad applications to teach that everything since Christ's and Paul's teaching means that Deuteronomy 22 you cited somehow no longer applies. Paul was emphasizing to the Church of Corinth the spiritual warfare that they were in a war. They were not invading Germany or conquering the rest of Europe as Caesar was evident as a church. Nevertheless, they were in battles if they lived Godly lives.
Paul wrote Ephesians 6 too, but that didn't negate what Jesus said to his disciples.
Sometimes I wonder if the pastors I heard teach on personal pacifism think we entered the millennial reign of Christ at the first advent?

So I agree with your point about helpless children and women who are attacked. Doesn't even nature itself teach us that a good mother will guard her child from harm? A little rabbit will chew up a hand that reaches into her den when she has babies.
This is an apostate world where women are told by liberal pastors that they "have the right " to kill their own children (abortion) and to allow harm to come upon them.
Then they throw a verse in to justify it.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

You are looking beyond the denominational limitations that I have heard too many preachers express. It is a gross insult to any woman who has been raped, physically assaulted or her baby murdered to throw
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 into her face, as if she should not do anything but submit to violence against herself and child.

3"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds."

That's a wonderful passage, but bad applications to teach that everything since Christ's and Paul's teaching means that Deuteronomy 22 you cited somehow no longer applies. Paul was emphasizing to the Church of Corinth the spiritual warfare that they were in a war. They were not invading Germany or conquering the rest of Europe as Caesar was evident as a church. Nevertheless, they were in battles if they lived Godly lives.
Paul wrote Ephesians 6 too, but that didn't negate what Jesus said to his disciples.
Sometimes I wonder if the pastors I heard teach on personal pacifism think we entered the millennial reign of Christ at the first advent?

I agree. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 is all about spiritual warfare - not fending off physical harm/violence. If you're chopping down a tree and it starts falling toward you, don't you get out of the way to avoid being harmed? Why would you not try to defend yourself when someone is trying to harm/kill you? That is serious twisting of a Bible verse by Christians who aren't consulting the Holy Spirit on the matter.

But it DOES need discernment. I think the event of Peter cutting off the servant's ear was included in the Bible to show that it was the wrong time to use the sword. So definitely we all need to stick close to the Lord and consult Him in everything so that we'd know when we should or shouldn't fight and use weapons.

So I agree with your point about helpless children and women who are attacked. Doesn't even nature itself teach us that a good mother will guard her child from harm? A little rabbit will chew up a hand that reaches into her den when she has babies.

This is an apostate world where women are told by liberal pastors that they "have the right " to kill their own children (abortion) and to allow harm to come upon them.
Then they throw a verse in to justify it.

Yeah, when I was young in the Lord, I would wrestle with these passages. But if you read the whole Bible, the verses in the Old Testament temper what the New Testament says about not fighting back. The Old Testament wasn't just about ceremonial laws that only lasted until Jesus died for us, it was also about common sense living, quality of life issues - that doesn't go away because of what Jesus did for us.

❧

 

[oyster67]

It takes a lot of faith to allow God to do things His way rather than following our knee-jerk reactions. That is why God had to whittle down Gideon's army to such a small number. If we want to see chariots of fire, we must learn to look to the hills from whence our help cometh. We must humble ourselves to the point of realizing that He is the shepherd, and we are the sheep of His pasture.

2 Kings 6:17
“And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.”

Psalms 121:1
“(A Song of degrees.) I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.”

Psalms 23
1(A Psalm of David.) The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

I have posted from the new and posted from the old, but breaking your proud and independent spirits is something I cannot do. Many can only learn the hard, hard way.

 

[oyster67]

Zechariah 4:6
“Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.”

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

It takes a lot of faith to allow God to do things His way rather than following our knee-jerk reactions. That is why God had to whittle down Gideon's army to such a small number.

According to Judges 7, that vastly reduced army of Gideon still fought though, as God willed it. it's not like they just stood there. This requires being discerning of God's instructions - it's not a knee-jerk reaction. And they did fight in God's Spirit and power - why did you think they were able to fight off the much larger army of the enemy?

I have posted from the new and posted from the old, but breaking your proud and independent spirits is something I cannot do. Many can only learn the hard, hard way.

How is seeking God's will and obeying His instructions being proud and independent of Him???

Not everything can be solved the same way as the Bible testifies. Sometimes God DOES want you to fight. Sometimes He says He'll take care of it Himself. The key thing is to be discerning of His instruction and to go forth in His spirit to obey them. If you already made assumptions that God doesn't want you to fight ever, then you're really not listening to Him. He will go to someone else who will do as He says. So who's being proud and independent in this case then?

❧

 

[pottersclay]

What are your thoughts on Matthew 5:38-45:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 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. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain .42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For years I have believed similar to most Anabaptist groups, that these verses teach that we may not use force to defend ourselves.

I've been questioning this interpretation lately because of a few different reasons. It doesn't seem to line up with God's character to do nothing when you see someone about to get hurt, or to allow someone to violate you any way they choose. (You may think this extreme, but some take it that far.)

But Jesus obviously changed SOMETHING in the above verses from how things were done up to that point!

What does Jesus mean here?

There are and were many eastern traditions which are used to express displeasure in ones actions and speach.

A slap or striking on the cheek was to humiliate to dishonor a person in public. In order to regain honor the slap was returned.
Some clutures used a shoe to slap to dishonor a person. We seen this in the Iraq (desert storm) war.
Imo Jesus was speaking to the culture of the day.
We in the USA see this as a assult but in many cases in the east it is viewed differently.
Hope this sheds some light on the subject.

 

[Gojira]

That's a interesting perspective on the number.
Concerning the Roman occupation, do you think they allowed the carry of swords?

I believe the Romans allowed the people to own weapons. It was later, near the Roman downfall, that they started to forbid the citizenry from owning weapons. It was then that the Germanic tribes were able to more easily penetrate Roman territory -- if I have my history correct.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

What are your thoughts on Matthew 5:38-45:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 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. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain .42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For years I have believed similar to most Anabaptist groups, that these verses teach that we may not use force to defend ourselves.

I've been questioning this interpretation lately because of a few different reasons. It doesn't seem to line up with God's character to do nothing when you see someone about to get hurt, or to allow someone to violate you any way they choose. (You may think this extreme, but some take it that far.)

But Jesus obviously changed SOMETHING in the above verses from how things were done up to that point!

What does Jesus mean here?

for hundreds of years israel had the law of Moses Moses taught them how to deal with things like offense

“And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:23-25‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Repay offense with an equal offense because it’s just eye for an eye , wound for a wound , tooth for a tooth

“And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭19:21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This is how Moses taught the people to deal with offense in the law of Moses now consider what Jesus is saying


“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

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. ( this is contrary to Moses directive do not repay evil with evil do not repay offense for offense instead be merciful , let an offense pass , don’t take revenge and bear a grudge forgive )


And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

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; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:38-45‬ ‭KJV‬‬


rather than consider each verse in a literal sense look at the contrary spirit of what Jesus is teaching his disciples v ehat israel was taught by the law of Moses

Theres a spirit in what Jesus is teaching and there’s a spirit in what Moses taught what I mean by spirit is the ba given e of how to deal with things it’s completely different and has completely different motivation

ahold everyone accountable and repay equally for the wrong they have done , or forgive the ones who have wronged you like Jesus did when they spit on him , whipped him , mocked and ridiculed him , punched and hit him with a reed stripped him and put a crown of thorns and a crimson robe on him mocking him some more and when they nailed him to the cross

“Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:53-54‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Jesus could have called heaven down upon the men persecuting him but instead he forgave them

“And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭23:33-34‬ ‭

what jesus teaches people to do is what he already did first he turned the other cheek and blessed those who cursed him

its the new testament being preached

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

[QUOTE="2ndTimeIsTheCharm, post: 5075644, member: 321531"][/QUOTE]


Also to add to your post, some soldiers asked Jesus....

Luke 3:14
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Notice that the Lord Jesus didn't say "Quit your occupation as a soldier since that requires using a sword (or whatever weapon) and having to fight". His only reply was "don't extort money or accuse people falsely."

-=<❤>=-

Also in terms of rape - a woman really should resist - scream at least for help and hopefully someone will come by and stop that rapist from continuing to violate her. But even if no one was around, the Bible says to resist.

Deuteronomy 22
3 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Seriously, I'd rather die because I'm screaming for help than to let them continue to violate me without any resistance. And I'd also try to leave evidence of what happened.

-=<❤>=-

Also, it's right to defend helpless children if something terrible is being done to them. That goes without explanation.

❧[/QUOTE]


2ndTimeIsTheCharm,

You have the right attitude about this as I think the other ladies here do too. I can't speak for all of the guys. Perhaps they would submit to bring violated by sodomites is in the same situation, thinking that they are turning their cheek.

I spoke with the Rape and Domestic Violence Center head a while back to ask her opinion on this subject. I think she attended a Woke church because her recommendation to women who were attacked goes against the passage you quoted from Deuteronomy above. Why do I suspect she belonged to a liberal church? Because that passage describes the NORMAL instinct that women have when violently assaulted. God gave women that instinct. Only teachers who don't understand or agree with that could convince a raped woman otherwise. When I was young I went to some of those churches.
BTW, she didn't know that those women who fight back, on average end up with less injuries and trauma.
The pastors cherry picked the typical verses that made no sense in how they applied them to life situations. God makes sense as Jesus taught. However, I was left with the impression that they refused to distinguish between a slap and that of grave bodily harm. Even young children understand that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt you. The words part can be taught with more details as they mature, because even the Bible condones certain times name calling is appropriate, but they know the difference between that which is mild evil , verses that of grave bodily injury. They are taught a very basic way to cope with arguments and that never meant that they were to allow bullies to beat on them with sticks or stones. The Woke application confuses the proper application of these principles.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

What are your thoughts on Matthew 5:38-45:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 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. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain .42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For years I have believed similar to most Anabaptist groups, that these verses teach that we may not use force to defend ourselves.

I've been questioning this interpretation lately because of a few different reasons. It doesn't seem to line up with God's character to do nothing when you see someone about to get hurt, or to allow someone to violate you any way they choose. (You may think this extreme, but some take it that far.)

But Jesus obviously changed SOMETHING in the above verses from how things were done up to that point!

What does Jesus mean here?

Dear Hope in Him,

Please forgive me if I have offended you.
The video first posted is not directed at you, but rather at woke preachers who would inevitably follow this topic. I had my fill of them as a kid. A little sarcastic humor is a kind way to approach their philosophy.
After re-reading your post, I think we agree, but like most of us, simply need a few blanks filled in.

From the start, Jesus had the challenge of trying to convince unsaved preachers, even those who were rulers of the Jews like Nicodemus of the plain sense. Those preachers were often either over spiritualizing basic doctrines or taking things over literally as Nicodemus the Pharisee in John 3..

A way that I remember one rule of interpretation is this....

When the plain sense makes common sense
seek no other sense, lest it becomes nonsense.

Your Original Post makes sense to me and probably to most believers in Christ.

 

[HopeinHim98]

Dear Hope in Him,

Please forgive me if I have offended you.
The video first posted is not directed at you, but rather at woke preachers who would inevitably follow this topic. I had my fill of them as a kid. A little sarcastic humor is a kind way to approach their philosophy.
After re-reading your post, I think we agree, but like most of us, simply need a few blanks filled in.

From the start, Jesus had the challenge of trying to convince unsaved preachers, even those who were rulers of the Jews like Nicodemus of the plain sense. Those preachers were often either over spiritualizing basic doctrines or taking things over literally as Nicodemus the Pharisee in John 3..

A way that I remember one rule of interpretation is this....

When the plain sense makes common sense
seek no other sense, lest it becomes nonsense.

Your Original Post makes sense to me and probably to most believers in Christ.

It's okay. I haven't responded to a lot of the posts because I'm still undecided what I believe and am not quite sure what to say sometimes! And other times just don't want to argue. I really appreciate y'all's responses though! Plus I've been pretty busy.