Matthew 5:39
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:46 pm
Steve, et al,
I would like to hear any comments regarding your view of the application of this teaching by Jesus regarding retaliation.
Steve has said he takes this command literally and has acted in accord with it at one time when he was struck. In "the Divine Conspiracy", Dallas Willard takes the exact same position as Steve.
On the other hand, Joachim Jeremias takes the position that the blow struck on the right cheek indicates it was an action taken as an insult to a heretic. The right cheek being struck, most people being right handed, indicates the practice of grabbing the heretic by the beard with the left hand while striking the right cheek with the back of the right hand. Thus the necessity of "turning the other cheek" for another back hand blow from the right hand. Jeremias understands this teaching of Jesus as limited to persecution as Christians and not addressed to self defense.
I have believed that 1 Cor. 6:7 teaches that the "ideal" response to being taken advantage of financially is to let it go rather than sue. Steve has pointed out that in at least some cases this might not be the loving thing to do in that the perpetrator would not be held accountable and would likely persist in his sin. Would not this same principle apply in cases of self defense? Could a Christian defend himself in a minimal way, i.e. only to the extent necessary to prevent harm?
Any comments will be appreciated.
Steve, forgive me if I have mis-stated any of your position(s).
I would like to hear any comments regarding your view of the application of this teaching by Jesus regarding retaliation.
Steve has said he takes this command literally and has acted in accord with it at one time when he was struck. In "the Divine Conspiracy", Dallas Willard takes the exact same position as Steve.
On the other hand, Joachim Jeremias takes the position that the blow struck on the right cheek indicates it was an action taken as an insult to a heretic. The right cheek being struck, most people being right handed, indicates the practice of grabbing the heretic by the beard with the left hand while striking the right cheek with the back of the right hand. Thus the necessity of "turning the other cheek" for another back hand blow from the right hand. Jeremias understands this teaching of Jesus as limited to persecution as Christians and not addressed to self defense.
I have believed that 1 Cor. 6:7 teaches that the "ideal" response to being taken advantage of financially is to let it go rather than sue. Steve has pointed out that in at least some cases this might not be the loving thing to do in that the perpetrator would not be held accountable and would likely persist in his sin. Would not this same principle apply in cases of self defense? Could a Christian defend himself in a minimal way, i.e. only to the extent necessary to prevent harm?
Any comments will be appreciated.
Steve, forgive me if I have mis-stated any of your position(s).