DMLJ: …if our interpretation ever makes the teaching appear to be ridiculous or leads us to a ridiculous position, it is patently a wrong interpretation.
Thank you for your excellent post. I found it on Lew Rockwell. I agree it is the states responsibility to control violent: "There is extensive teaching elsewhere in Scripture that makes clear the government is established to resist and punish evil."
It depends how pacifism is defined. I consider myself a pacifist. I could not join the military when I was young, mostly because of the overreach and unjust actions of the military. If I were fighting I would not know if I was fighting for a just cause or to make money for the military/Industrial/congressional complex. And if I thought the action was unjust I would be required to carry out orders.
The military is so unjust from a sermon on the mount perspective, I would not be able to hold a position that did not carry a gun. I also refused to assist on projects my company worked on for the military several times during my career.
I considered, but did not apply for a position as police officer for similar reasons. However, I would have possibly been able to hold a position that did not require a gun.
I agree, by your definition of pacifism, pacifism would be ridiculous. It would be necessary to require non-Christians to follow the sermon on the mount. That will never happen.
Romans 13 requires we obey the government as long as we follow Jesus first. It does not require use to participate in the governments evil.
"While not a straight and consistently upward sloping line through time, the improvements in ethical behavior due to Jesus’s teaching can be seen all the way through the middle of the nineteenth century, but clearly this has fallen off starting in the beginning of the twentieth century. Basically, the yeast needed time to work, and both authors are suggesting that a) the teaching of Moses was intended to move man slowly in the right direction, and b) Jesus’s teaching extended this." - some have set the beginning of this falling off to the time of the Enlightenment. In any case, what bothers me about the current churchian claim of being persecuted by our culture at large being like the time of the Apostles in the first and second century. The difference -
The first century Christendom was conquering paganism - our current churchianity, which includes all the denominations, is dealing with the rise of paganism AFTER it defaulted culturally several hundred years ago to paganism.
Crush, I am glad you raised this as it gives me a chance to clarify. First, I take from Alexandr Solzhenitsyn:
"This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists."
I agree with this fully. What I was getting at was the West continued to run on the remnant of the Christian spirit even after the beginning of the Enlightenment period, and further increases were seen in social relationships, liberty, etc. But once men removed God, the die was cast.
Slavery ended everywhere in the West by the mid-1800s or so - this, it seems to me, was the high point, but it doesn't mean that the course was not set some 200 years before. By 1914, the West committed suicide, but it was an inevitable suicide once man divorced himself from God, from any higher force above him.
And, yes. The church went along with this idea of taking God out of the public sphere, placing the individual man at the top of the pyramid. Sadly, we know the type of individual man that enjoys taking this position.
Let me take it one further Bionic. If it is NOT okay for a Christian to participate in the military or police when that military is oppressing or conquering other lands, but it is okay if the military is protecting people's rights, isn't it also acceptable for an individual Christian to protect his own rights and those of the people around him? That puts the focus on the action not the position. Ethical actions are always ethical. Unethical actions are always unethical. We are getting to the state/civilian distinction which libertarians reject. Morality applies equally to a person whether or not they are in a state role. But how does that apply to the Bible passage covered above?
Well, I would say that in each case Jesus brings up, the victims life, health, and material provision are not critically threatened. A slap on the cheek is painful but it won't scar you for life. A second slap on the other cheek is the same. Plus, in the passage, just because you turn the other cheek doesn't mean the aggressor slaps you again. Instead, the "turning" is an act of de-escalation and I think the purpose is to end the conflict. Jesus criticizes the idea of honor culture where a man must strike back to prove his manhood and honor to the public. In God's calculus peace is more important.
In fact I heard a person on the Bob Murphy show describe this instruction as a way to shame the aggressor. According to his understanding, when a right handed person slaps someone on the right cheek with the back of the had that is a sign the aggressor thinks of himself as higher status. It was how you treated a slave. But when you turn the other cheek, he has to slap you on the left cheek with you open hand. In that culture, slapping someone with an open hand was a sign that both people had the same status. So the victim is taking a posture of humility but he is also making the aggressor really think about what he was doing. The victim is stating through his actions, "we are equal, you have no right to slap me, we are from the same social status."
The other cases could have similar meanings. In a law suit, if a person is trying to take your shirt in court, you put the plaintiff in a precarious legal situation if he is in possession of your cloak when he goes before the judge. It is a way that a defendant could shame a plaintiff by non-violent action in their culture.
The walking 2 miles issue is similar. In Roman law a soldier or other Roman official could force you to walk a mile with him to carry out some kind of task. Think of Simon the Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross. But a mile, or the Roman equivalent, was the legal limit. If you walked with a Roman soldier 2 miles in public, you the victim, put the aggressor in legal jeopardy. The soldier could be punished for that.
Maybe this guy on Bob's show was incorrect, but I found it a very interesting conversation. Either way, Jesus' instructions do take the focus off of one's self and put it on the other person whether to withhold a fight or to help them out in some way with a cloak or a walk. It goes from selfishness to generosity, but never to the point that the victim's life or material well being is seriously harmed.
My last point is that proportional justice was followed in the West up until the Enlightenment. Christians followed the Old Testament lessons until secular rationalism took over. Now we see the effects in war. The US, supposedly an exceptional nation, the "good guy", bombs poor countries mercilessly, supplies other nations to do the same thing, and has no crisis of conscience. Even worse, most who call themselves Christians celebrate the merciless bombing and insult or berate those who don't follow suit.
RMB, I concur with your view that wearing a badge doesn't change what is acceptable behavior for a Christian. This is what I tried to flush out a bit, including in the epilogue. But the authors were not completely clear on this, though it could be inferred at least a little bit....
As to your points about the slap and the two miles, one of the authors made these same points (I think Lloyd-Jones), but my post was so long that I had to decide where to edit (neither made the comment about the coat and cloak, but your source seems sound). In the end, I wanted to drive the post toward the conclusion I chose to draw, and tried to stay somewhat focused on this path.
Just to share some of my thinking...As to the length of my post, I thought about splitting it in two, and bringing out some of these other points. However, I think each passage in the Sermon deserves a complete treatment in one post, not a part one and part two.
First, I am glad that Lloyd-Jones made a similar comment about the slap. I actually got it backward and had to go back and edit my comment. But that gives me more confidence in that interpretation.
Second, don't worry about the length. It is a consideration, but sometimes the topic or the passage you are covering requires it. I agree with your conclusion.
Thank you for your excellent post. I found it on Lew Rockwell. I agree it is the states responsibility to control violent: "There is extensive teaching elsewhere in Scripture that makes clear the government is established to resist and punish evil."
It depends how pacifism is defined. I consider myself a pacifist. I could not join the military when I was young, mostly because of the overreach and unjust actions of the military. If I were fighting I would not know if I was fighting for a just cause or to make money for the military/Industrial/congressional complex. And if I thought the action was unjust I would be required to carry out orders.
The military is so unjust from a sermon on the mount perspective, I would not be able to hold a position that did not carry a gun. I also refused to assist on projects my company worked on for the military several times during my career.
I considered, but did not apply for a position as police officer for similar reasons. However, I would have possibly been able to hold a position that did not require a gun.
I agree, by your definition of pacifism, pacifism would be ridiculous. It would be necessary to require non-Christians to follow the sermon on the mount. That will never happen.
Romans 13 requires we obey the government as long as we follow Jesus first. It does not require use to participate in the governments evil.
https://nonviolentchristians.wordpress.com/
Thank you for your comment. I, too, have passed up opportunities for the same reason.
Separately, on Romans 13, I have suggested that it may have been written more for the governors than the governed!
https://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2022/08/to-whom-is-apostle-writing.html
When you wrote -
"While not a straight and consistently upward sloping line through time, the improvements in ethical behavior due to Jesus’s teaching can be seen all the way through the middle of the nineteenth century, but clearly this has fallen off starting in the beginning of the twentieth century. Basically, the yeast needed time to work, and both authors are suggesting that a) the teaching of Moses was intended to move man slowly in the right direction, and b) Jesus’s teaching extended this." - some have set the beginning of this falling off to the time of the Enlightenment. In any case, what bothers me about the current churchian claim of being persecuted by our culture at large being like the time of the Apostles in the first and second century. The difference -
The first century Christendom was conquering paganism - our current churchianity, which includes all the denominations, is dealing with the rise of paganism AFTER it defaulted culturally several hundred years ago to paganism.
Crush, I am glad you raised this as it gives me a chance to clarify. First, I take from Alexandr Solzhenitsyn:
"This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists."
I agree with this fully. What I was getting at was the West continued to run on the remnant of the Christian spirit even after the beginning of the Enlightenment period, and further increases were seen in social relationships, liberty, etc. But once men removed God, the die was cast.
Slavery ended everywhere in the West by the mid-1800s or so - this, it seems to me, was the high point, but it doesn't mean that the course was not set some 200 years before. By 1914, the West committed suicide, but it was an inevitable suicide once man divorced himself from God, from any higher force above him.
And, yes. The church went along with this idea of taking God out of the public sphere, placing the individual man at the top of the pyramid. Sadly, we know the type of individual man that enjoys taking this position.
Let me take it one further Bionic. If it is NOT okay for a Christian to participate in the military or police when that military is oppressing or conquering other lands, but it is okay if the military is protecting people's rights, isn't it also acceptable for an individual Christian to protect his own rights and those of the people around him? That puts the focus on the action not the position. Ethical actions are always ethical. Unethical actions are always unethical. We are getting to the state/civilian distinction which libertarians reject. Morality applies equally to a person whether or not they are in a state role. But how does that apply to the Bible passage covered above?
Well, I would say that in each case Jesus brings up, the victims life, health, and material provision are not critically threatened. A slap on the cheek is painful but it won't scar you for life. A second slap on the other cheek is the same. Plus, in the passage, just because you turn the other cheek doesn't mean the aggressor slaps you again. Instead, the "turning" is an act of de-escalation and I think the purpose is to end the conflict. Jesus criticizes the idea of honor culture where a man must strike back to prove his manhood and honor to the public. In God's calculus peace is more important.
In fact I heard a person on the Bob Murphy show describe this instruction as a way to shame the aggressor. According to his understanding, when a right handed person slaps someone on the right cheek with the back of the had that is a sign the aggressor thinks of himself as higher status. It was how you treated a slave. But when you turn the other cheek, he has to slap you on the left cheek with you open hand. In that culture, slapping someone with an open hand was a sign that both people had the same status. So the victim is taking a posture of humility but he is also making the aggressor really think about what he was doing. The victim is stating through his actions, "we are equal, you have no right to slap me, we are from the same social status."
The other cases could have similar meanings. In a law suit, if a person is trying to take your shirt in court, you put the plaintiff in a precarious legal situation if he is in possession of your cloak when he goes before the judge. It is a way that a defendant could shame a plaintiff by non-violent action in their culture.
The walking 2 miles issue is similar. In Roman law a soldier or other Roman official could force you to walk a mile with him to carry out some kind of task. Think of Simon the Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross. But a mile, or the Roman equivalent, was the legal limit. If you walked with a Roman soldier 2 miles in public, you the victim, put the aggressor in legal jeopardy. The soldier could be punished for that.
Maybe this guy on Bob's show was incorrect, but I found it a very interesting conversation. Either way, Jesus' instructions do take the focus off of one's self and put it on the other person whether to withhold a fight or to help them out in some way with a cloak or a walk. It goes from selfishness to generosity, but never to the point that the victim's life or material well being is seriously harmed.
My last point is that proportional justice was followed in the West up until the Enlightenment. Christians followed the Old Testament lessons until secular rationalism took over. Now we see the effects in war. The US, supposedly an exceptional nation, the "good guy", bombs poor countries mercilessly, supplies other nations to do the same thing, and has no crisis of conscience. Even worse, most who call themselves Christians celebrate the merciless bombing and insult or berate those who don't follow suit.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
RMB, I concur with your view that wearing a badge doesn't change what is acceptable behavior for a Christian. This is what I tried to flush out a bit, including in the epilogue. But the authors were not completely clear on this, though it could be inferred at least a little bit....
As to your points about the slap and the two miles, one of the authors made these same points (I think Lloyd-Jones), but my post was so long that I had to decide where to edit (neither made the comment about the coat and cloak, but your source seems sound). In the end, I wanted to drive the post toward the conclusion I chose to draw, and tried to stay somewhat focused on this path.
Just to share some of my thinking...As to the length of my post, I thought about splitting it in two, and bringing out some of these other points. However, I think each passage in the Sermon deserves a complete treatment in one post, not a part one and part two.
First, I am glad that Lloyd-Jones made a similar comment about the slap. I actually got it backward and had to go back and edit my comment. But that gives me more confidence in that interpretation.
Second, don't worry about the length. It is a consideration, but sometimes the topic or the passage you are covering requires it. I agree with your conclusion.