Piper's Guns and Martyrdom

[Barnpreacher]

You know, I've seen Piper in person. He's not a very big man. I still don't know what his muscles (guns) have to do with this thread???

 

[redmanca]

It seems to me that there is a disconnect between people's reason for protecting their families, and then their justification for that action. Allow me to demonstrate.

This was said earlier:

Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.

I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.

I completely agree, and have no doubt that this would be my reaction to a threat on my family (specifically since I'm getting married in a month).

However, the WLC says:

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? ...sinful anger,752 hatred,753 envy,754 desire of revenge;755 all excessive passions,756...

It would seem to me that the reaction stated above would fall into the category of at least "excessive passion," if not anger or desire of revenge. So, my question is, if you defend your family with lethal force, but experience excessive passion and/or hate while doing it, is it still just, or does it then become sinful and a breaking of the 6th commandment?
If you experience these sinful feelings, but still write off your actions as just, under the 6th commandment, isn't that trying to justify your sin with a principle of the law that doesn't apply to that situation any more (because of your sinful motives)?

Again, I'm not trying to single anyone out, or even say that I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction if it happened to me. But this question has been bugging me since I read this thread this morning.

Thoughts?

Conor.

 

[Christusregnat]

Mike,

The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous.

It is wrongheaded to assume that Jesus teaches non-violent resistance, when the established Law of God condones it. There are, to be sure, particular applications to be made in a hostile culture rather than a theocracy, but the point remains that Christ is not contradicting the OT.

As an Englishman you should know that the only people who rejoice at disarmament are thugs, tyrants and fools. The British people have been effectively disarmed in order to make them a pray to State-control and thuggery. Hitler did the same thing to the Jews BEFORE he took them off to concentration camps, the Soviets did it to the general populace before the killing began, the U.N. did it to people of Rwanda before the massacres in Rwanda. Here's a good article on Rwanda by a man who witnessed the aftermath of the slaughter:

The Holocaust in Rwanda - 10 Years on

By the by, it also an interesting fact of history that the Nazis NEVER attacked Switzerland. Every 18 year old Swiss male served a three year term in the military, and was sent home with an automatic weapon, and required to defend his home. The Nazis were too smart to attack an armed populace; sadly, the same was not the case with the Jews. Advocates of disarmament are participating in murder; this is a verifiable fact of history, and this is why Jesus gives the right for a man to defend his home, and to look out for the interest of those who are indefensible. To do otherwise is to consent to murder.

Cheers,

Adam

I am left uneasy when large numbers of passages in the new testament are pretty much ignored because we do not like the teaching. We are told to give thieves what they want to take and to turn the other cheek.

In my mind the message is clear that we should not violently resist wrongdoers who threaten us.

This is not the same as letting someone rape your wife as you are watching and to reduce the argument to this one point is at best unhelpful. The issue has to be addressed as part of the argument but it is an extreme.

We are told that in establishing the message of the Bible obscure passages should be interpreted through clearer passages and the problem is that the passages advocating personal pasifism are very clear and are repeated.

This is quite personal to me as one of my earliest "deep" thoughts on the bankruptcy of the liberal (and not so liberal) Church was when in answer to a similiar question Billy Graham said that he would shoot someone who was attacking his wife as if he did not do so he would not be acting like a man. My thought was that should he be advocating a standard of behaviour because it was macho or because it was a command of God?

There is the issue that we are under the protection of God and our chief trust should be in him, not in small arms or baseball bats. I am not saying that these are easy questions or conclusions but the Gospel is foolishness to the world and perhaps this is an area where we should not be relying on presuppositions (as some, although by no means all of the arguements for reacting violently are based) of what we should be doing rather than the instructions of the Gospel.

 

[VictorBravo]

There seems to me that there is a disconnect between people's reason for protecting their families, and then their justification for that action. Allow me to demonstrate.

This was said earlier:

Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.

I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.

I completely agree, and have no doubt that this would be my reaction to a threat on my family (specifically since I'm getting married in a month).

However, the WLC says:

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? ...sinful anger,752 hatred,753 envy,754 desire of revenge;755 all excessive passions,756...

It would seem to me that the reaction stated above would fall into the category of at least "excessive passion," if not anger or desire of revenge. So, my question is, if you defend your family with lethal force, but experience excessive passion and/or hate while doing it, is it still just, or does it then become sinful and a breaking of the 6th commandment?
If you experience these sinful feelings, but still write off your actions as just, under the 6th commandment, isn't that trying to justify your sin with a principle of the law that doesn't apply to that situation any more (because of your sinful motives)?

Again, I'm not trying to single anyone out, or even say that I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction if it happened to me. But this question has been bugging me since I read this thread this morning.

Thoughts?

Conor.

I don't want to be glib, but there is a place for righteous anger:

"Be ye angry, and sin not." Eph. 4:26.

 

[k.seymore]

I don't understand why the previous poster made some reference to Christ telling the disciples to buy swords in order to "appear to be insurrectionists". Christ would never tell them to give off a false impression - that would be a violation of the 9th commandment - so he must have had other reasons.

Yes, perhaps I was not clear, and I probably should not have used the word "ensure." Both the Jews and the Romans know he is not guilty. Jesus isn't deceiving anyone. It is a symbolic action. I had said, "This symbolic action (similar to the actions of the prophets) will point toward the true meaning of his death. He is going to take the place of sinners." Jesus tells them his kingdom needs nothing, but now they need to take up swords for he must be counted as a transgressor, Peter tries to use the sword to defend his king shortly thereafter, Jesus yells, "No more of this!" (that is speaking of more than just Peter's sin!) and explains, "Put your sword in its place. All who take up the sword will perish by the sword." Then he turns to the soldiers and says, "Have you come out against me as if against a robber ("insurrectionist" perhaps, see Jn 18:40 with Lk 23:19, Mk 15:7)." They are arresting him "as if" he were a transgressor, even though he is obviously not as his words to Peter make clear. This is not deception.

However Jesus was not crucified because he was seen as an "insurrectionist" but because he was a ""blasphemer".

Of course they can't crucify him for insurrection! He's not an insurrectionist. Read the passage you are referring to... they come up with the charge of blasphemy because they were "looking for false testimony against Jesus"(they knew he wasn't guilty) but none of their false witnesses could agree. And they know he isn't rebelling against Rome. But rebellion is exactly what they try to charge him with before Pilate: they say he was perverting their nation, forbidding them to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself was a king in the place of Caesar. "If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar's," they argue, "Anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar." Does really it sound like they are telling Pilate to crucify him for blasphemy?

Anyways, all of that just to say Jesus' telling the disciples to take us swords shouldn't be used as a defense to take up swords. Other places in scripture allow this, but it appears to me that this one is being misused.

 

[Ravens]

What I'm about to say is a bit of a side-step, and somewhat of a tangent. Nevertheless, I believe it touches on a point of consistency.

I have to admit that people who advocate pacifism very much make me hot under the collar, not necessarily because of their stance in and of itself, but because of their inconsistency and (I hate to say it, but perceived...) dishonesty in handling the Sermon on the Mount.

So, in accordance with the "clear" and "straight-forward" reading which some are advocating, if I 1) quoted Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away", 2) asked you to go to your bank, empty your checking account, savings accounts, etc., and mail them to me (I'll PM you the address), would you be consistent, and do so?

If that seems like a reductio ad absurdum, well, so be it. It is exactly the kind of hermeneutic that you are advocating when it comes to pacifism. This might be the lack of a judgment of charity, but pacifism is easy to advocate when your wife isn't getting raped, and when your actual locality isn't being attacked. It's easy to condemn war and guns when we are blessed to live in virtually uninterrupted peace.

So we can sit back and just adopt these schemes. Yet when that same hermeneutic is applied to other passages, all the sudden, it's like, "Wait, wait, wait a minute; hold on, now we're talking about my money!!! We have a mortgage, a car payment, etc., I just can't send you all of my money! Come on now, be realistic!"

Perhaps some of us just see that the protection of our wife and our family is equally important as our money.

Furthermore, since we are presumably not perfectionists on the Puritanboard, I have to wonder how many of the male pacifists are walking around eye-less and hand-less. Hmmmm...?

I think my tone has been a bit sardonic, and I apologize in advance. I've just seen these kinds of arguments before, whether from Campolo or others of that stripe, and when the rubber meats the road, e.g., their money, not just money in general, but their money, all of it, mailed to me ASAP (PM me for the address, again), all of the sudden Christ's comments are to be understood by the analogia Scriptura, and with a modicum of, what's the proper way to say it, God-given, sanctified, Biblically regulated common sense.

Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, until they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.

 

[redmanca]

I don't want to be glib, but there is a place for righteous anger:

"Be ye angry, and sin not." Eph. 4:26.

Alright, but does that mean that it's just to use lethal force in protecting your family while being righteously angry? Being angry and being angry while killing someone are two very different things. While it might be justifiable to be righteously angry, can the same be said for being that angry while killing?
Doesn't that nullify the part of the WLC quoted?


And to quote Tom Cruise: "You're glib!"

Conor

 

[Hippo]

Mike,

The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous.

It is wrongheaded to assume that Jesus teaches non-violent resistance, when the established Law of God condones it. There are, to be sure, particular applications to be made in a hostile culture rather than a theocracy, but the point remains that Christ is not contradicting the OT.

As an Englishman you should know that the only people who rejoice at disarmament are thugs, tyrants and fools. The British people have been effectively disarmed in order to make them a pray to State-control and thuggery. Hitler did the same thing to the Jews BEFORE he took them off to concentration camps, the Soviets did it to the general populace before the killing began, the U.N. did it to people of Rwanda before the massacres in Rwanda. Here's a good article on Rwanda by a man who witnessed the aftermath of the slaughter:

The Holocaust in Rwanda - 10 Years on

By the by, it also an interesting fact of history that the Nazis NEVER attacked Switzerland. Every 18 year old Swiss male served a three year term in the military, and was sent home with an automatic weapon, and required to defend his home. The Nazis were too smart to attack an armed populace; sadly, the same was not the case with the Jews. Advocates of disarmament are participating in murder; this is a verifiable fact of history, and this is why Jesus gives the right for a man to defend his home, and to look out for the interest of those who are indefensible. To do otherwise is to consent to murder.

Cheers,

Adam

I fully agree that Jesus was not contradicting the law, that would be an unthinkable interpretation but just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned (John 7) and an "eye for an eye" the new testament often teaches us to forgive rather than to enforce the law to its letter.

I am not advocating disarmament as such, I am quite happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the law by force if that is the will of God, but the role of the magistrate is very different to my role as a private citizen.

 

[mshingler]

Mike,

The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous.

It is wrongheaded to assume that Jesus teaches non-violent resistance, when the established Law of God condones it. There are, to be sure, particular applications to be made in a hostile culture rather than a theocracy, but the point remains that Christ is not contradicting the OT.

As an Englishman you should know that the only people who rejoice at disarmament are thugs, tyrants and fools. The British people have been effectively disarmed in order to make them a pray to State-control and thuggery. Hitler did the same thing to the Jews BEFORE he took them off to concentration camps, the Soviets did it to the general populace before the killing began, the U.N. did it to people of Rwanda before the massacres in Rwanda. Here's a good article on Rwanda by a man who witnessed the aftermath of the slaughter:

The Holocaust in Rwanda - 10 Years on

By the by, it also an interesting fact of history that the Nazis NEVER attacked Switzerland. Every 18 year old Swiss male served a three year term in the military, and was sent home with an automatic weapon, and required to defend his home. The Nazis were too smart to attack an armed populace; sadly, the same was not the case with the Jews. Advocates of disarmament are participating in murder; this is a verifiable fact of history, and this is why Jesus gives the right for a man to defend his home, and to look out for the interest of those who are indefensible. To do otherwise is to consent to murder.

Cheers,

Adam

I fully agree that Jesus was not contradicting the law, that would be an unthinkable interpretation but just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned (John 7) and an "eye for an eye" the new testament often teaches us to forgive rather than to enforce the law to its letter.

I am not advocating disarmament as such, I am quite happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the law by force if that is the will of God, but the role of the magistrate is very different to my role as a private citizen.

I think you are confusing the role of the government, in punishing evil-doers, with the role of the private citizen in self-defense or defense of the innocent and/or helpless. No one (I don't think) is advocating that we should take our guns and execute vengeance on someone who does violence to us. Rather, that it is biblically justifiable to defend one's self and one's family and, in some situations, other bystanders.

 

[Hippo]

Furthermore, since we are presumably not perfectionists on the Puritanboard, I have to wonder how many of the male pacifists are walking around eye-less and hand-less. Hmmmm...?

I think my tone has been a bit sardonic, and I apologize in advance. I've just seen these kinds of arguments before, whether from Campolo or from emergent folks in my life, and when the rubber meats the road, e.g., their money, not just money in general, but their money, all of it, mailed to me ASAP (PM me for the address, again), all of the sudden Christ's comments are to be understood by the analogia Scriptura, and with a modicum of, what's the proper way to say it, God-given, sanctified, Biblically regulated common sense.

Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, until they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.

We are told that the greatest commandment is that you should "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind", by your argument this is nonsense because it is so hard to do and a bit of "Biblically regulated common sense" shows that it should be ignored, after all we are told elsewhere that we should love other things as well.

When you state that "Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount..." you are betraying presupositions that dictate what your understanding will be.

 

[Christusregnat]

I fully agree that Jesus was not contradicting the law, that would be an unthinkable interpretation but just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned (John 7) and an "eye for an eye" the new testament often teaches us to forgive rather than to enforce the law to its letter.

I am not advocating disarmament as such, I am quite happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the law by force if that is the will of God, but the role of the magistrate is very different to my role as a private citizen.

Mike,

Disarmament isn't about the nanny-state being disarmed. Disarmament is about the private man being forbidden to own a weapon, SO THAT he can become the pawn of the nanny state. It is part of Plato's ridiculous "republic" to have an armed class while all others are at their mercy.

The Law that Jesus didn't contradict likewise gives private citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense, and for the defense of their wives, their little ones, and their liberty.

The disarmaments of which I spoke were done BY MAGISTRATES and the arms were taken away from PRIVATE CITIZENS. People who advocate disarmament of private citizens are consenting to murder. Magistrates who enforce such ideas are worse than murderers (though they are that), they are tyrants.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Ravens]

We are told that the greatest commandment is that you should "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind", by your argument this is nonsense because it is so hard to do and a bit of "Biblically regulated common sense" shows that it should be ignored, after all we are told elsewhere that we should love other things as well.

Let's not get lost in rabbit trails. Not that you are doing that now, but it could easily go down that road. I most certainly did not say that "If something is 'so hard to do' then it should be ignored." That's either irresponsible or disingenuous. Seeing as you have not properly set forth my position, I don't really know how to answer you.

Besides, I wasn't offering a full-fledged exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, nor was I offering a full-fledged critique of the pacifist position. I was commenting, as I said from the get-go, on a point of consistency.

When you state that "Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount..." you are betraying presupositions that dictate what your understanding will be.

Well, you left out something rather crucial, didn't you? Namely, the rest of that paragraph. It sounds worse when you leave out the "until". Here's the full context, with emphasis:

Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, until they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.

I don't see that as inappropriate at all.

That's like saying, I won't listen to an Arian until he can deal with John 8:58, or John 20:28. Or, not listening to someone who denies the imputation of Adam's sin until he deals with Romans 5.

I have no personal animosity towards you, nor, necessarily, towards pacifism in general. But any exegesis of a portion of the Sermon on the Mount that isn't applied to the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and that seems to contradict a variety of threads of Scripture, whether pertaining to self-defense or the necessity of providing for one's family, will not be taken seriously by me.

 

[VictorBravo]

I don't want to be glib, but there is a place for righteous anger:

"Be ye angry, and sin not." Eph. 4:26.

Alright, but does that mean that it's just to use lethal force in protecting your family while being righteously angry? Being angry and being angry while killing someone are two very different things. While it might be justifiable to be righteously angry, can the same be said for being that angry while killing?
Doesn't that nullify the part of the WLC quoted?


And to quote Tom Cruise: "You're glib!"

OK, instead of glib I'll try to be concise instead.

Q & A 136 enjoins excessive passions. Exodus 22:2 states that it is just to kill in self-defense. The two are not dependant upon each other, but are likely to both arise in a self defense situation. If you are angry at your family being attacked, it is not "excessive" but righteous, because someone is committing a wicked act that is worth being angry about. The act of killing, under these circumstances, regardless of your emotion, is just. I'd go so far as to say that the act of killing under these circumstances without righteous anger might be a mark of a cold-blooded killer instead of a fearer of God.

Of course the anger would be excessive and sinful if you sought revenge after the fact. It would be excessive if you were angry at someone who did not threaten your family. And so forth. But, even if we are called to love our enemies, we still can (and I think should) be righteously angry at wickedness.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This topic has engaged me for decades; with a background in the USMC (1959+ [no combat]), martial arts, and living in a rough neighborhood on the lower east side of Manhattan while a single parent with a little girl, later in Woodstock NY still a single parent, living somewhat as a street person in those days.

In my early years I was backslidden a lot (that’s another story!), yet still carried His word in my heart.

In one incident in Woodstock, while – as a child-care worker – caring for a woman’s two young children (she traveling) in her home, my 7-year-old daughter with us, her brother, a big athletic guy, gay, living on the same grounds (different house), propositioned me, which I turned down firmly but respectfully.

Later that night, in a drunken rage, he tried to break in the front door; the children were all terrified (he had another time [before me] broken into the house and tried to burn it down – so the children told me). I called the cops but they were unsure of what was his property and what his sister’s, and wouldn’t respond. As he continued, I told him through the door, “I have a fireplace iron in my hand; if you make it through the door I will send you to the hospital, but I might do a bad job and send you to the morgue. You still want to come in?” He left. I gave the children ice cream, calmed them down, and they all got to sleep. I went to his house the next morning, a 4 foot plumbing pipe in my hand, and told him to come out if he was still feeling so rowdy. I was set to teach him a lesson about terrifying my children. He became subdued.

All this to say, I have struggled with violence most of my adult life (I went in the Corps at 17), that is, living among violent people, and seeking the biblical response. I was converted at 26 (now 66). In the early days I took a beating once for defending a sister against someone coming on to her and putting his hands on her (I stood up and loudly told him to get off her) – in a Christian coffee shop – and he waited for me outside and gave me a few punches – I told my friends standing around to leave him be – not to jump him. When he took a spike out of his pocket as though to stab me with it they did jump him and disarmed him, but didn’t beat him up – they let him go. I heard that a while later he became a Christian. I wasn’t able to verify that.

If someone comes into my house at night (there are robbers who are psychopaths even in this part of the world) and enters my wife’s bedroom I will seek to send him to the hospital (I have other weapons than guns), but may do worse. With hand-to-hand combat it’s not always easy to go easy, especially if one’s a slight guy like myself – not to mention being old! One makes every move count.

In the service of the Gospel I would suffer injury rather than inflict it. It is an honor to follow Christ in this. My wife and I are both prepared to die if so put to the test.

Are not personal attacks having no relation to the presentation of the Gospel – nor in a missionary situation – to be seen differently? Are God-fearing people to allow the violation and disintegration of the social order – especially in a society governed by just laws – contrary to the law of the land? Romans 13 speaks of the “powers that be [which] are ordained of God” (v. 1), and if these powers allow self-defense, defense of family, and defense of the helpless against violent attack, one may do so without fear of the magistrate, and with a clear conscience before the Lord. Personally, to not come to their defense would go against my conscience.

A distinction needs to be made – and has been in earlier posts – between acting as a representative of the Kingdom engaged in Kingdom activity, and acting as a private citizen of a worldly government, not at that time formally representing the Kingdom.

There are different marching orders for each situation. When engaged in service in the house of God I don’t drink alcohol (save the communion wine). When not, I may. When in formal service I dress differently. And so forth.

If Christians were known to allow violence against their families, and theft of their property with impunity, they would be seen by the rest of society – and its government – as a detriment to domestic order and the enforcement of law. They would not be welcome in many societies as a result. To interpret the Sermon on the Mount as permitting such violence and theft is not sound exegesis.

I’ve been trying to stay away from PB for a while to catch up on other work, but this topic drew me in!

 

[Hippo]

Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, until they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.

I don't see that as inappropriate at all.

That's like saying, I won't listen to an Arian until he can deal with John 8:58, or John 20:28. Or, not listening to someone who denies the imputation of Adam's sin until he deals with Romans 5.

I have no personal animosity towards you, nor, necessarily, towards pacifism in general. But any exegesis of a portion of the Sermon on the Mount that isn't applied to the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and that seems to contradict a variety of threads of Scripture, whether pertaining to self-defense or the necessity of providing for one's family, will not be taken seriously by me.

What you said was you would not listen to a pacifist until he explained why he did not live up to his stated position in practice (i.e. give you you money). This is very different to saying that you would not listen to him until he reconciled his position with other parts of scripture.

As I have posted elsewhere there is no inconsistency in my position at all, we are told that the law allows an eye for an eye but our Lord instructed us not to enforce this right, just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned as would have been permisable under the law.

It is your position that is inconsistent as you are advocating an action that is denied by direct command of scripture, my interpretation is acting within scripture.

I am not trying to be "smart" here (and if I was I am certainly not succeeding), this is a difficult area both theologically and practically but the command of personal pacifism cannot be dismissed out of hand as lacking common sense or not having a powerful scriptual base.

 

[CDM]

I don't see that as inappropriate at all.

That's like saying, I won't listen to an Arian until he can deal with John 8:58, or John 20:28. Or, not listening to someone who denies the imputation of Adam's sin until he deals with Romans 5.

I have no personal animosity towards you, nor, necessarily, towards pacifism in general. But any exegesis of a portion of the Sermon on the Mount that isn't applied to the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and that seems to contradict a variety of threads of Scripture, whether pertaining to self-defense or the necessity of providing for one's family, will not be taken seriously by me.

What you said was you would not listen to a pacifist until he explained why he did not live up to his stated position in practice (i.e. give you you money). This is very different to saying that you would not listen to him until he reconciled his position with other parts of scripture.

As I have posted elsewhere there is no inconsistency in my position at all, we are told that the law allows an eye for an eye but our Lord instructed us not to enforce this right, just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned as would have been permisable under the law.

It is your position that is inconsistent as you are advocating an action that is denied by direct command of scripture, my interpretation is acting within scripture.

I am not trying to be "smart" here (and if I was I am certainly not succeeding), this is a difficult area both theologically and practically but the command of personal pacifism cannot be dismissed out of hand as lacking common sense or not having a powerful scriptual base.

I did not read the entire thread so I apologize if you have addressed this already.

Where, exactly, does Scripture give "direct command" forbidding self-defense?

I do not want to set up a straw man so I'll say this generally: Any man that would not stop another (with lethal force if necessary) from murdering, raping, robbing his neighbor (his family!) is in DIRECT contradiction to scripture. This would not be "loving thy neighbor" but advocating gross wickedness.

 

[timmopussycat]

Mike,

The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous.

If you assert that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era, you are echoing the view of the Galatian Judaizers. If you try to reduce your subject from the entire Mosaic law to a defined subset thereof, (e.g. Calvin and most of the reformed tradition reducing Christ's subject to the moral law/decalogue), you collide with Jesus' words in 5:18 "not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of the pen will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." With regard to the Mosaic law as such, Christ is asserting its total applicability until he accomplishes everything necessary for it to be superseded by the new covenant. Yet the NC incorporates many of the Sinaitic details, some of which are incorporated in this very sermon.

 

[Hippo]

I did not read the entire thread so I apologize if you have addressed this already.

Where, exactly, does Scripture give "direct command" forbidding self-defense?

I do not want to set up a straw man so I'll say this generally: Any man that would not stop another (with lethal force if necessary) from murdering, raping, robbing his neighbor (his family!) is in DIRECT contradiction to scripture. This would not be "loving thy neighbor" but advocating gross wickedness.​

While your general point is arguable it is an argument by inference, if you did not use lethal force out of concern for your own safety you would be correct but if you are following the commandments of God it is righteous. Your point is based on the presuposition that we are not commanded not to use force, which is the whole point of this discussion.

Off the top of my head:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mt 5:38-48). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Pe 2:19-24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 12:17-21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 6:27-33). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

[CDM]

I did not read the entire thread so I apologize if you have addressed this already.

Where, exactly, does Scripture give "direct command" forbidding self-defense?

I do not want to set up a straw man so I'll say this generally: Any man that would not stop another (with lethal force if necessary) from murdering, raping, robbing his neighbor (his family!) is in DIRECT contradiction to scripture. This would not be "loving thy neighbor" but advocating gross wickedness.​

While your general point is arguable it is an argument by inference, if you did not use lethal force out of concern for your own safety you would be correct but if you are following the commandments of God it is righteous. Your point is based on the presuposition that we are not commanded not to use force, which is the whole point of this discussion.

Off the top of my head:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mt 5:38-48). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Pe 2:19-24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 12:17-21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 6:27-33). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

I am not sure what I am supposed to understand about the various texts you have sighted but I do know that to love one's neighbor as thyself includes defending him from being beaten to death when it is in your power to assist him.

Earlier you mentioned:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

But did not mention the next verse,

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Is it loving to your neighbor to watch him be beaten to death? Or is this wicked?

Thanks for your answers; I am truly seeking to understand your view.

 

[Hippo]

Firstly if anyone can explain to me why the verses that I quote do not mean that you should not resist violence with violence then I am genuinly interested in hearing why.

If you would not defend yourself if attacked then when not defending your neighbor you are loveing "thy neighbour as thyself".

We are told to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I am sure that you would agree that in following the commandments of God you you are never being wicked, no matter how follish the Gospel seems to the world.

My problem is that we have clear commands of scripture, I have explained why such commands do not contradict scripture but the counter argument that the vast majority of this board are presenting is stating exactly that.

 

[VictorBravo]

Firstly if anyone can explain to me why the verses that I quote do not mean that you should not resist violence with violence then I am genuinly interested in hearing why.

If you would not defend yourself if attacked then when not defending your neighbor you are loveing "thy neighbour as thyself".

We are told to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I am sure that you would agree that in following the commandments of God you you are never being wicked, no matter how follish the Gospel seems to the world.

My problem is that we have clear commands of scripture, I have explained why such commands do not contradict scripture but the counter argument that the vast majority of this board are presenting is stating exactly that.

Have you read Matthew Henry on the Sermon on the Mount, or other reformed authors? If not, I'd suggest working through them to get a clearer understanding.

Here's an except from Henry's commentaries:

1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.

 

[Hippo]

I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?

 

[satz]

I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?

I think the context of the sermon on the mount – which is significantly concerned with correcting the pharisee’s abuse of the law- shows that when Jesus tells us to be pacifists, it is with regards to small, relatively inconsequential personal offenses, which is what the lost of a cloak, a slap on the cheek, or walking an extra mile are.

An ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘tooth for a tooth’ were part of the OT as rights of the government, and the bible reaffirms them in Romans 13. What Jesus was correcting was the wrong application of those biblical principles to minor personal offenses.

 

[Christusregnat]

Tim,

If you assert that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era, you are echoing the view of the Galatian Judaizers.

Interesting, albeit, untrue assertion (and that's all it is).

Here's Calvin thought on the passage:

There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.....With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.


Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Notice, for Calvin, there are two basic types of law: (1) Laws eternal in character, directing a "devout and holy life" and "ancient and accustomed government", and (2) Ceremonial Laws which Christ confirmed by His life, Passion, Resurrection, etc.

This is my position, but thanks for trying to group me with Judaizers

Adam

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?

I think the context of the sermon on the mount – which is significantly concerned with correcting the pharisee’s abuse of the law- shows that when Jesus tells us to be pacifists, it is with regards to small, relatively inconsequential personal offenses, which is what the lost of a cloak, a slap on the cheek, or walking an extra mile are.

An ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘tooth for a tooth’ were part of the OT as rights of the government, and the bible reaffirms them in Romans 13. What Jesus was correcting was the wrong application of those biblical principles to minor personal offenses.

Satz,
You might have just written the best post on this whole thread. Thanks.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Firstly if anyone can explain to me why the verses that I quote do not mean that you should not resist violence with violence then I am genuinly interested in hearing why.

If you would not defend yourself if attacked then when not defending your neighbor you are loveing "thy neighbour as thyself".

We are told to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I am sure that you would agree that in following the commandments of God you you are never being wicked, no matter how follish the Gospel seems to the world.

My problem is that we have clear commands of scripture, I have explained why such commands do not contradict scripture but the counter argument that the vast majority of this board are presenting is stating exactly that.

I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?

I'm going to ask you something and I need a clear answer: Are you an anabaptist?

That out of the way, let me make something plain about the way you are approaching these "clear" commands of Scripture: it is a muddled and confused approach.

Did or did not Christ state that he taught in such a way as to be-fuddle many of His listeners?

There is something known as the analogy of faith that requires that our theological understanding of things has to be able to cohere from all directions. We work from the clear to the un-clear. Now, you want to claim that these "commands" by Christ are clear.

At the same time, however, you want to claim that Christ was not contradicting the Word of God elsewhere.

Well, given your interpretation of what Christ's command clearly intends then you can't have it both ways. The only way you can hold together the OT commands and Christ's teaching is to take a dispensational view or a view that says that Christ came to over-rule the OT Law.

Frankly, I find your appreciation for the text to be superficial on a number of points but, most disturbing, is the way you pit God against Himself. It's sort of the "mean OT God" that commands/permits self-defense vs. the "nice NT God" who has had the Son come to make everything different.

The nature of a moral precept in the Scriptures is that they represent God's Holy character. We cannot hold that God is unchanging on the one hand and then claim that moral principles are somehow morphed from one era to another.

Thus, if pacifism is what God's character requires of us now then it follows that His character would have required it of OT Saints as well. Hence, you actually do injury to the nature of God Himself and I find myself extremely frustrated when I read the things you write because you type in such a way as to twist the Word of God into a pretzel.

You need to learn much more about the Word before you presume to teach here on a Reformed Board because you're understanding of the Scriptures is clearly de-formed and not reformed.

Fundamentally, you need to understand Christ as the Lawgiver Himself and the Sermon(s) on the Mount were not new revelation but proper interpretation. Christ never repudiates what is written but what others have said. In other words, He notes: "You have heard it said, but I say to you...." When He is finished, people are astonished because He spoke as one who had authority.

Why? Because the Law had been enshrouded by Rabinnical Schools of thought that "said" that these Laws mean this. Christ is giving proper interpretation to these laws. In some cases, He's pointing out that the Rabinnical interpretations permit too many loopholes and self-deceit regarding personal righteousness and in others He is correcting mis-information about where the Rabbis would have permitted vengeance where the Law only permits self-defense and the defense of the weak.

Hence, if you understand Christ as always with the people and the giver of the Law then you would not be able to come to some sort of crazy conclusion that He would give a law or principle about self-defense at one point in the life of God's people only to repudiate what He taught. Ceremonial principles had a terminus in His work but, if such moral principles change, then we're admitting mutation in the Godhead. This is unacceptable.

 

[redmanca]

If you are angry at your family being attacked, it is not "excessive" but righteous, because someone is committing a wicked act that is worth being angry about. The act of killing, under these circumstances, regardless of your emotion, is just. I'd go so far as to say that the act of killing under these circumstances without righteous anger might be a mark of a cold-blooded killer instead of a fearer of God.

Fantastic point. Thanks for the answers sir.

Conor

 

[Pergamum]

A thought for me is that Jesus gave us examples of civil injustices that are minor and non life-threatening:

---Romans soldiers impressing folks into carrying their packs, presumably to save the soldiers strength, maybe for fighting to save the Republic. Jesus seems to tell us to tolerate minor injustices such as this.

If the army comes by and requisitions a jacket for a winter campaign I guess maybe we give them some old shirts too?

Getting slapped on the cheek is a lot different than being beaten with a baseball bat.



Can anyone link any info on the cultural context of Jesus' words?

 

[jogri17]

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

While I agree that the taking of a life is always a terrible thing, how do you reconcile your view with the following scripture, which has been quoted a few times in this thread already?

"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him," - Exodus 22:2 (esv)

That scripture makes no mention or implication of your life being obviously or overtly threatened, only of there being a "thief found breaking in."

I say you it was for a theocracy, a law for a people that were supposed to be godly.

 

[Pergamum]

Another quick thought:

Loving my neighbor might mean kicking his rear if he is drunk and sinning rather than being "nice" and enabling his sin.

I am all for Godly butt kickings when needed.

In the Army (moreso in the past I am sure) we were glad when the troubled recruit was given a small "reminder" to shape up rather than "endanger" our whole platoon during training exercises. This "reminder" was not very nice and led to slight bruising but was an act of long-term love as the troubled recruit in question ceased from his stupidity, trained hard and finished his enlistment term successfully and with commendations.


The most "loving" thing is often not the most "nice."