Sermon on the mount confusion

[lucky4075]

Hello all

I have had alot of confusion as to the meaning of Jesus’ meaning in the sermon on the mount.

" Do not resist an evil person, love your enemies, turn the other cheek." Do all of these versus mean that we are never allowed to use self defense? Another interesting point that someone brought up was that Jesus always re explained his teachings if the apostles misunderstood Him. He didn’t do it here- does that mean that the literal interpretation is the correct one?

Happy Friday everyone.

 

[Bookcat]

Hello all

I have had alot of confusion as to the meaning of Jesus’ meaning in the sermon on the mount.

" Do not resist an evil person, love your enemies, turn the other cheek." Do all of these versus mean that we are never allowed to use self defense? Another interesting point that someone brought up was that Jesus always re explained his teachings if the apostles misunderstood Him. He didn’t do it here- does that mean that the literal interpretation is the correct one?

Happy Friday everyone.

1.No…

1. There is always the “literal sense” (see CCC as to what that means)

 

[lucky4075]

Sorry but I forgot to mention one other question that I had.

From what I’ve found the early church adopted this pacifist viewpoint, why would it change its viewpoint? I know that for the first few centuries Christians were a minority and many became martyrs for their faith. But why did none of them try to fight back and defend themselves? After Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, the views seemed to change and we saw the first Christians in military/ state service. Is this justifiable just because Christians became an accepted part of society?

 

[Glorthac]

My opinion is that Christians should not defend themselves if they’re being persecuted for being Christians. The early Church Fathers actually sought martyrdom, by the way.

However, if you’re in a dark alley, and somebody attacks you, use common sense, try to get out of there, and defend yourself if you need to.

As for military duty, John the Baptist told a soldier to “be content with his wages” (Luke 3:14). The interesting part about this is, the word for ‘be content’ is in the present passive imperative, which means it is is a continual command.

So I don’t think there’s anything wrong with military service, as long as you don’t do anything immoral. The early Christian soldiers refused to slaughter innocent people, and were decimated because of it.

 

[valentino]

Hello all

I have had alot of confusion as to the meaning of Jesus’ meaning in the sermon on the mount.

" Do not resist an evil person, love your enemies, turn the other cheek." Do all of these versus mean that we are never allowed to use self defense? Another interesting point that someone brought up was that Jesus always re explained his teachings if the apostles misunderstood Him. He didn’t do it here- does that mean that the literal interpretation is the correct one?

Happy Friday everyone.

IMO first Christ said we have to take up our cross daily and follow Him.We cant resist an evil person because otherwise how would he ever hear the truth.We cant ignore sinners and neither did Christ.If they can see that we love them even if they hate us that possibly is the best witness we can give.Better than preaching.It might be argued that it was Christ love for people which converted more people than even his preaching or miracles.I dont think He was necessarily speaking literally when He said turn the other cheek.

 

[Mumbles140]

Speaking on the matter of pacifism and ‘turn the other cheek’, C.S. Lewis had a great essay entitled “Why I am not a Pacifist”, and he explains why Christianity and Christ were not pacifists, and what the true context of teachings like “turn the other cheek” mean.

One of my favorite points in the essay is the idea that, when Jesus commanded us to turn the other cheek, they were discussing personal offenses. No one would have thought it natural to apply those words to war or defense of country, and yet pacifists continue to take this out of context and proclaim it like a commandment…

 

[rcjones]

If we no longer fear death because we trust and believe Christ, then when faced with these situations we don’t have to fear anything short of death either.

It is a difficult teaching for the flesh to accept.

 

[mcrow]

“Turning the other Cheek” in the manner that Jesus said to do was most certainly not a pacifist action.

Taking into account the culture at the time it was actually an aggressive challenge. Striking the right side of someone’s face with the back of your right hand was considerd an act authority over lower class people. However, by “turning the other cheek” you are forcing the stiker to do one of two things:

#1- strike you with the back of his left hand on your left cheek.

or

#2- Slap you with his right hand open on the right side of your face.

It was socially unacceptable to strike anyone with your left hand because it’s “unclean”. Since most people in those days wiped with their left hand (no paper or anythig, just the hand) so as not to make their right hand unclean for shaking hands…ect. This would be a unacceptable thing to do, socially, at this time. Good thing too, yuck!

Now, if he strikes you with a slap or punch, then he’s admitting you’re his equal. These kinds of strikes are what they used on people they thought were on the same social level as they were.

In this way Jesus is actually being a lot more aggresive than most people realize. He’s challenging them to hit him and either commit a socially unacceptable act that will have negative reprecussions or to hit him and show he’s an equal. The third option is to not strike at all but that would be seen as show of weakness if challenged in that matter. So, if anything, it may actually escalate the situation. Note, though, that Jesus does not say to be aggresive physically. Other passages in the bible do in fact lean toward self defense being OK, it’s just not the aim of these verses.

 

[rcjones]

How is it more aggressive than most people think to give him your cloak too?
Or to go the extra mile? Just doesn’t fit in my mind.

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 cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

I think I’ll stay with the traditional interpretation thanks.

 

[mcrow]

How is it more aggressive than most people think to give him your cloak too?
Or to go the extra mile? Just doesn’t fit in my mind.

I think I’ll stay with the traditional interpretation thanks.

Neither interpretation is wrong. Without historical context the traditional interpretation is fine. But when looking at how things worked in those days it’s more aggressive than most think. He’s basically challenging a striker to admit he’s equal. IMO, challenging someone to do something isn’t being passive.

Giving his cloak would be another topic, that’s where the more passive part of this is. Imagine if you backhanded someone, they turned their cheek in defiance and then you slap them. In response, instead of striking back, the person you struck hands you his cloak as if nothing happened?

Do you think that it is more like to aggrivate the striker or less likely?