Question for Steve (non-resistence)
Question for Steve (non-resistence)
Steve, on a recent program you mentioned being physically assaulted at one point in your life and that you literally turned the other cheek. I'm curious as to how this assault came about, as I've always found you to be a friendly guy. Also, did the person continue to assault you when you refused to resist? The main reason for my curiosity is that I've never quite seen this kind of obedience played out and often wonder if I'd be able to do the same. A member of my church once threatened me with violence for teaching some doctrines he didn't agree with. For this reason I began to contemplate how I'd react if he were to follow through with this. The issue ended up resolving itself but I still wonder how I'd react.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
i often have wondered whether jesus's example of "turning the other cheek" is truly a prohibition against self-defense. to me, the idea of being slapped on the cheek is essentially taking an insult. sure, the insult may be a slap in the cheek, perhaps more in the culture of Jesus's day than now. we should not return insult for insult. the reason i think that being slapped on the cheek is equal to an insult is that if a person is intending to really hurt someone, they dont slap them on the cheek; they punch them in the nose or the mouth.
i wonder what chuck norris has to say about this? he is a Christian, I believe.
TK
i wonder what chuck norris has to say about this? he is a Christian, I believe.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Hi JC,
The only time I was struck on the face by an angry assailant was a situation where I and the other elders of our church had made a decision that greatly angered a very unstable and violent individual. He was confronting me, screaming at me and threatening bodily harm, and I suspected that he was about to hit me. I was not alone, so I took off my glasses and handed them to a by-stander. The man punched me across the jaw, and waited to see my reaction. I had no temptation to strike him back (why escalate the situation?) and I felt the instructions of scripture were clear enough, so I calmly presented to him the other side of my face, if he wished to further vent his anger. Apparently, his first blow was sufficiently cathartic (or else God restrained him) and he had no desire to hit me again. He turned around and fled the scene.
I am not sure if you have read what I wrote at some length on this subject. It can be found at the "Topical Articles" link at our website. It is entitled, "On the Believer’s use of Forcible Resistance."
The only time I was struck on the face by an angry assailant was a situation where I and the other elders of our church had made a decision that greatly angered a very unstable and violent individual. He was confronting me, screaming at me and threatening bodily harm, and I suspected that he was about to hit me. I was not alone, so I took off my glasses and handed them to a by-stander. The man punched me across the jaw, and waited to see my reaction. I had no temptation to strike him back (why escalate the situation?) and I felt the instructions of scripture were clear enough, so I calmly presented to him the other side of my face, if he wished to further vent his anger. Apparently, his first blow was sufficiently cathartic (or else God restrained him) and he had no desire to hit me again. He turned around and fled the scene.
I am not sure if you have read what I wrote at some length on this subject. It can be found at the "Topical Articles" link at our website. It is entitled, "On the Believer’s use of Forcible Resistance."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
i think, in most cases, as steve pointed out, a person will not strike twice if the person he is assailing does not fight back. violence does escalate violence, for sure. i am sure Jesus had this in mind when giving the instruction.
does this mean that Jesus intended that a person should allow themselves to be beaten to death? the correct answer may be "yes," but i am not sure if it is clear that this was what was intended.
are there any instances of the apostles "turning the other cheek?" i cant think of any off the top of my head-- yes, they were beaten by mobs and by the ruling authorities but they really had no choice about those occasions.
TK
does this mean that Jesus intended that a person should allow themselves to be beaten to death? the correct answer may be "yes," but i am not sure if it is clear that this was what was intended.
are there any instances of the apostles "turning the other cheek?" i cant think of any off the top of my head-- yes, they were beaten by mobs and by the ruling authorities but they really had no choice about those occasions.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Brother Steve,
I would like to attach a title such as Dr. at the beginning of your name but you might find it uncomfortable therefore I'll just call you brother Steve even though I know that you deserve to be called a doctor more than anybody else.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with us that's an encouragement for me.
I would like to attach a title such as Dr. at the beginning of your name but you might find it uncomfortable therefore I'll just call you brother Steve even though I know that you deserve to be called a doctor more than anybody else.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with us that's an encouragement for me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I don't think that He intended that we "allow" ourselves to be beaten to death per se. I don't see any reason why we couldn't run away. Should we be backed into a corner though, and were alone with the person (had no one to defend) I suppose we should "allow" it.does this mean that Jesus intended that a person should allow themselves to be beaten to death? the correct answer may be "yes," but i am not sure if it is clear that this was what was intended.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Okay, it seems clear that our Lord taught us not to resist an evil person who assaults us. But what if he is assaulting someone else? Suppose a person is walking down a street, knifing people as he goes by. Should we permit him to kill the others, or should we take steps to prevent him?
What if you arrive home and find a person raping your wife or physically beating her? Does Jesus want you to stand by and do nothing?
I do not pretend to have the answers here, only questions. I have pondered this for decades, and still have been unable to come up with a definitive rule by which I can know for certain what God would have me to do in any particular violent situation.
What if you arrive home and find a person raping your wife or physically beating her? Does Jesus want you to stand by and do nothing?
I do not pretend to have the answers here, only questions. I have pondered this for decades, and still have been unable to come up with a definitive rule by which I can know for certain what God would have me to do in any particular violent situation.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hi Paidion,
I try to deal with these kinds of cases in my article at the website. All of the teaching about nonresistance in the New Testament seems to be envisaging a case where the person refusing to retaliate is the one personally under attack.
I don't think Jesus' instructions, in Matthew 5, were intended to be applied as an inflexible legalism. I think He was teaching that we should love others, even enemies, more than we love ourselves (just like He did). In many cases, this would mean putting ourselves into the position of absorbing injuries, rather than inflicting them. This is a function of mercy--which is one aspect of love.
Our love for bad people is not permitted to neutralize our love of good people, however. To prevent a violent criminal from attacking innocent victims is a function of justice--another aspect of love. To protect an innocent person when it is in our power to do so without sinning is a duty, in my opinion. I think Jesus' teaching was not so much the establishment of a "non-resistance ethic" as it was an example of how radically loving we should be to all people, including those who hate and attack us. It is not unloving to interfere with a criminal in the midst of his criminal activity. You may, in fact, be doing him a favor, rather than allowing him to accrue more and more guilt in being permitted to continue victimizing others.
P.S. to PAULESPINO--
I appreciate the kind sentiments, but I am not a doctor. In fact, I have no formal education whatever. If I had earned a doctorate (or was granted an honorary one) I still would not feel comfortable allowing anyone to give me such a title. I do appreciate your honorable mention, however.
I try to deal with these kinds of cases in my article at the website. All of the teaching about nonresistance in the New Testament seems to be envisaging a case where the person refusing to retaliate is the one personally under attack.
I don't think Jesus' instructions, in Matthew 5, were intended to be applied as an inflexible legalism. I think He was teaching that we should love others, even enemies, more than we love ourselves (just like He did). In many cases, this would mean putting ourselves into the position of absorbing injuries, rather than inflicting them. This is a function of mercy--which is one aspect of love.
Our love for bad people is not permitted to neutralize our love of good people, however. To prevent a violent criminal from attacking innocent victims is a function of justice--another aspect of love. To protect an innocent person when it is in our power to do so without sinning is a duty, in my opinion. I think Jesus' teaching was not so much the establishment of a "non-resistance ethic" as it was an example of how radically loving we should be to all people, including those who hate and attack us. It is not unloving to interfere with a criminal in the midst of his criminal activity. You may, in fact, be doing him a favor, rather than allowing him to accrue more and more guilt in being permitted to continue victimizing others.
P.S. to PAULESPINO--
I appreciate the kind sentiments, but I am not a doctor. In fact, I have no formal education whatever. If I had earned a doctorate (or was granted an honorary one) I still would not feel comfortable allowing anyone to give me such a title. I do appreciate your honorable mention, however.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
I experienced many fist fights when I was a teenager and I regret it now.
I would usually defend myself against a bully or defend my friends against a bully.
What if after I was hit by an assilant and I felt that the assailant has an intention of hitting me again would it be wise to run away?
I would usually defend myself against a bully or defend my friends against a bully.
What if after I was hit by an assilant and I felt that the assailant has an intention of hitting me again would it be wise to run away?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: