What the Bible Says about Self Defense + Biblical Self Defense
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:
Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
Ezekiel 33 is a well-known passage:
Ezekiel 33 ”… 6 ’But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.’
via…http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
What does the Bible say about self-defense? What is the Biblical view of using lethal force for self-protection? Can a Christian own a gun? What about gun ownership? Assault weapons? The Bible study below attempts to answer these questions using Scripture.
The Biblical View of Self-Defense
Introduction
This study examines the Biblical view of self-defense. We’re looking at questions such as, Is it right to employ lethal force to protect the life of yourself and others? Is it right to take measures that might kill an attacker who is wrongfully threatening your life or the life of another?
Self-defense here is defined as “protecting oneself from injury at the hand of others.” Self-defense is not about taking vengeance. Self-defense is not about punishing criminals. Self-defense involves preserving one’s own health and life when it is threatened by the actions of others. When we speak about using potentially lethal force in self-defense, we’re talking about using weapons to protect ourselves and others, even if the weapons used could kill the attacker.
Now why in the world would we take time to look at this subject? First, as Christians, we want to know how to apply the Bible to current issues in society. We live in a country with approximately 250 million guns and approximately 300 million people. Furthermore, in our country, it is estimated that law abiding citizens defend themselves using guns approximately one million to two million times a year. Almost 200,000 people in this state alone have a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun. What does the Bible have to say about that many guns actively being used for self-protection?
We live in a time where the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, current possibilities of economic and societal collapse, and crime have people buying guns and ammunition in large quantities for self protection. What does the Bible say about that? What does the Bible say about so-called “assault weapons”?
As always, we want our hearts and minds to be ruled and informed by Scripture–not by our emotions, not by our experiences, and certainly not by the World. And because the Scriptures have much to say about this topic, it is relevant and worth examining in the Church.
The focus of this study is specific. I am not dealing with whether lethal force can legitimately be used in wartime. I am not dealing with capital punishment. I am not dealing with Biblical principles involved in the American Revolution or the War Between the States.
This study is organized in five sections. First, we will look at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. Secondly, we will look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. Thirdly, we will look at passages dealing with the application of lethal force in self-defense. Fourth, we will look at what the Bible says about possession of weapons and skill in using weapons. Finally, we look at limitations and warnings about self-defense.
The Biblical Obligation to Preserve Life
We begin by first looking at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. The Bible clearly teaches that we must preserve life–our own lives and the lives of other people. 1 Corinthians 6:19f teaches that our bodies are not our own. Rather, our bodies belong to God. Our bodies are His property and so we are not permitted to treat or destroy them as we please:
19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; 20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. (1Co 6:19-20 ASV)
Not only are we to take care of our bodies and the life contained. We have an obligation to preserve the body and life of other people. Psalm 82:4 even cites an obligation to protect those who are in danger:
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:
Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
Ezekiel 33 is a well-known passage:
Ezekiel 33 ”… 6 ’But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.’
If you know danger is coming to others, and you deliberately fail to warn the others of the danger, you are guilty of harming the victims. This is not to say that you can make people heed your warning. The surrounding verses also say that if the people refuse to heed the warning of the watchmen, the watchman is not guilty if they are harmed.
We also see principles in Mosaic law teaching that if we fail to guard the lives of others, we are guilty. In Deuteronomy 22:8, if someone falls from your roof, and you failed to install a safety fence around the edge, you would be held liable for the death of that person. Likewise, in Exodus 21:29-31, if a man has an ox which is prone to harm people, the owner is held liable if he fails to confine it and the ox harms or kills others. If the ox harms someone, the negligent owner is fined. If the ox kills someone, the negligent owner is to beput to death.
The principle could hardly be stated more forcefully: you must protect your life and the lives of others.
The Biblical View of Bloodshed
So we see we have a Biblical obligation to protect life. Now let’s look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. When we come to this topic, we enter an area that requires cultural re-calibration. As you read through the Old and New Testaments, it’s very clear that real blood, from animals as well as humans, has a significance not recognized in modern American culture. We must adjust our perception of blood to fit God’s view of blood.
Let’s look at some relevant passages and contrast them with what our culture thinks about bloodshed.
Genesis 9:5-6
Genesis 9:5-6 5 And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; At the hand of every beast will I require it. And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.
These words come in the days of Noah. This is pre-Mosaic law. Don’t think this is obsolete thinking from the Mosaic law.
If a man was killed, the man or beast who caused the death must pay with his/its own life. God says here, “I will require the life of man.” Killing or bloodshed was not always wrong. But when it was wrong, the penalty was ultimate.
We learn here that there is sanctity to spilled blood. Why? Two reasons:
1) Life is precious, and the life is in the blood. When blood is shed, something precious is lost. You might not think blood is precious. We tend to consider blood to be just a “bodily fluid”. It is, however, precious to God.
2) An attack on man is an attack on the image of God. At a trivial level, you’re messing with sculptures in God’s art studio. In God’s view of bloodshed, it is not merely a physiological event, but it is an assault on the divine image. Why is murder punishable by death? It says, “For in the image of God made He man.”
Psalm 44 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+44&version=KJV
Psalm 45 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+45&version=KJV
We learn more about God’s view of bloodshed from David. David is a man who loved God and who was loved by God. God raised him up to defend Israel. God sent David to physically fight to defend Israel. When David killed Goliath and Philistines in battles, it was at God’s command. They wererighteous killings. Now, with that understanding, let’s look at a few passages:
1 Chronicles 28:3 “But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for My name,because you have been a man of war and have shed blood.’
1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build a house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.
David wants to build a house for the Lord. This is a good desire. But God says, “David, you are disqualified from doing this.” Why? Not because of the murder of Uriah. Not because of his adultery with Bathsheba. It is because of the wars, and because David had
“shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.” David had killed men in the sight of God, and that disqualified him from this spiritual service.
But wasn’t David obeying God in engaging in these wars? Yes. Did David sin in shedding this blood? No. But shedding blood is so significant to God that David was unfit to for certain “ministries”.
/christian-news/2015/10/what-the-bible-says-about-self-defense-biblical-self-defense-2519196.html
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,603,634,568 |
| Stories: | 8,150,840 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Luke 11:22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divided his spoils. KJV
The scripture in Luke 11:22 is in reference to Yeshua describing the Kingdom of Heaven that is stronger than the kingdom of Beelzebub when some of the crowds said He was driving out demons with the help of Beelzebub.
The stronger of the Kingdom of Heaven will overpower the one from the Fallen Kingdom and divide the soils because that one trusted in the wrong power.
All of scripture in the new covenant is to get us to see beyond the material world and see who is really fighting against evil and who is protecting it.
Yeshua is the stronger and therefore cast out the dumb spirit in a man and He rules and will divide the spoils. Evil will trust in its evil powers and will loose and be overtaken by truth and the persuit good.
One must read the whole chapter to see the full meaning. This New Covenant in the N.T. will not have teachings as those in the Old Testiment which is by laws. It’s about the true enemy we fight. Not kingdoms of this world. We fight the unseen and it will be exposed. It’s in the spirit of man. Some have fight this thing inside and understand.
Therefore there is no reference in the N.T. accept the prophecies of the kingdoms of this earth fighting untill the unseen is taken down. Then humanity will be free. the little guys are just being used by the unseen.
…Helen…the new covenant is the ‘Law of Liberty’. Through repentance and forgiveness we each stay free of the bonds of sin. Every day, forgiveness is available through repentance…7X70…490 times per day, if you need it. Christ IS LIBERATION.
Abusing the bible to promote the notion of violence is absurd.
“The Bible” is the definitions of two religions, much of what the first religion taught was defined to a higher standard by Jesus Christ.
A true Christian would not resist an attacker. A Christian following the teachings of Jesus would turn the other cheek. A true Christian would rely on God entirely for his defense, and not fear death.
Having said that, I have not reached that level of Christianity. Someone puts their hands on me, and they will suffer for it.
And of course, I will be committing a sin.
But make no bones about it. Jesus put his attackers ear back in place after it was cut off by one of Christs disciples and Jesus very boldly overrode the Levitical “Eye for an eye” with “turn the other cheek”.
Christians twisting the scriptures to fit their own political and social ideals is one of the main reasons Christianity is losing believers and becoming an undesirable club to belong to.
…Rockledge…You are an idiot.
No.
If I was an idiot, I would respond with childish name calling rather than an opinion augmented by supporting information.
Ignore Kevorkian Rockledge. The mere thought of violence against the flesh stopping makes him go run and cry to Shaitan.
…Supporting information? like…common sense? I’m afraid you would not understand.
There are evil people out there that wish great harm on you. Like those that one want to take your weapons away preventing self-defense. You don’t have to shed blood to be EVIL.
The great harm people wish on you is that you believe politically corrupted Christianity and think it is ok to lob pieces of metal into others, in very direct contrast to the teachings of Christ.
Much as I personally would like to see the Christian world declare war on Islam and rid the planet of the evil horde, the bible tells me my attitude is wrong, and that I should follow Christ and His teachings instead.
Which are teachings of subservience, peace, and non-violence.
As I say, it isn’t beyond me to kick somebodys ass for being a fool, but when I do I am NOT living up to the tenets of anyone seriously following Christ.
Twisting the Bible to accommodate social movements or personal politics is NOT the same as submitting to the teachings of Christ.
What do you do, Rockledge, if young women or children in your charge came under a clear and present threat of bodily harm (such as murder or rape)?
Do you use every means at your disposal to protect? Or do you just hope for the best.
This is a serious question and I would appreciate an honest answer, according to your understanding of the Scriptures.
Read what I am saying carefully.
I, personally, have no problem taking care of business. I would have no problem taking someone out in self defense or defending an innocent from some wicked asshole.
But that is not my point. That there is a limit to how I practice my faith and to my self control is not cause for me to try to twist what the Bible teaches in order to accommodate my own spiritual weaknesses.
I would easily defy scripture. But I would not then, in order to try to placate my own conscience or for purpose of political idealism, try to bend Biblical teachings to my convenience.
The teachings of Christ are quite obviously non-violence and total reliance on God alone for safety and preservation.
I would not commit the sin of twisting scripture to fit my personal lack of faith, I would however commit the sin of violence toward another, given the right circumstance.
I think the Anabaptist have this one right. I think they have many things right, that doesn’t mean I could live their lifestyle.
But once again, I also will not try to make the Bible say what it does not say in the best interest of my own convenience.
I have a lot to answer for when I leave this planet, I will need a Savior to be my lawyer on judgement day. I believe the sin of violence is like all others, like lying, sex out of Biblicaly defined circumstances, greed, and a host of many others. All forgivable.
Once again, that God will front me out, for example, for my history of fornication, is no cause for me to try to twist scripture to fit them.
I hope to be able to look God in the eye and say “yep, that was me, I did that, please forgive me” as opposed to “look here what you said” and trying to convince Him Jesus taught things He obviously did not, to all of them, without trying to BS Him by pretending the
Bible said things I know well it does not.
As opposed to
And Jesus very obviously taught pacifism, as he did chastity.
“The teachings of Christ are quite obviously non-violence and total reliance on God alone for safety and preservation.”
In general, I believe that to be a fair statement.
“And Jesus very obviously taught pacifism, as he did chastity.”
Chastity, perhaps. But He did not teach pacifism:
Matthew 10:34
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Luke 22:36
And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me.
Are these the words of a pacifist?
Now it is true that He taught us to turn the other cheek, if someone strikes US. But what does the Bible have to say about protecting those in our charge… if we are able? I would agree with you that we can do nothing without God. But is it not possible that God might endow us with the means to quell a violent assault on those under our protection, if that is what is required at the time? God can help out in whichever ways He deems fit, after all. And that just might be the .45 in your holster and the training you received for its proper use.
Certainly the Law of God teaches us very specifically how to mete out justice with temperance and mercy. We are at all times to disburse justice as we would have justice disbursed to us. It is written in the Law that you may kill a person if he is caught in the act of breaking into your house. BUT, it is also written in the Law that same person may NOT be killed if sufficient time has passed and he is no longer an immediate threat to the homeowner or his family. We see in this case it is not the crime that warrants the penalty, but the clear and present danger the thief poses to the homeowner and his family. Once that clear and present danger is removed, the right to kill the thief is also removed.
Wasn’t His message in the Gospels that our justice must be tempered with mercy at all times? If not, we ourselves should expect no mercy in the day of our judgment.
There is nothing written in the New Testament that prohibits our protecting those in our care, even if circumstances call us to do so with violent or even deadly force. Mercy is the key. Mercy must be rendered by us whenever possible. But what if it’s not possible? If you had a license to carry a concealed weapon and a Muslim terrorist armed with an automatic AK-47 was slaying indiscriminately in your presence, it seems to me as a believer in the Word of God your move should be to put the murderer down as quickly as possible – or at least to render him incapable of continuing his onslaught as quickly and humanely as possible, by whatever means you had at your disposal. And I should think Jesus would not judge you for doing so, IF you did what you did according to the rules of mercy and if it was your only option other than allowing the fiend to continue his rampage unabated.
…”thou shalt not kill.” translates as “thou shalt do no murder”…it seems, as with most “mortal” sins, the INTENT, is what determines the character of the act.
at the last supper two of the apostles brought swords with them to the supper, they were not condemned by Christ.
That they carried the basic tools of everyday life in the harsh circumstances their cultures existence experienced is no puzzle.
Swords had far more uses than simply as weapons. They were tools, as well as weapons against dangerous animals and for hunting meat as well as processing it.
A sword to middle easterners of that time was like what a pocket knife and a set of keys are to modern men. That is was also a valuable weapon of men against each other hardly makes that its’ only purpose.
As far as the previous responders post, “the sword” also refers to the Bible itself, and is an euphemism for any instrument of struggle. To simply take a scripture out of context and assume it means violence and war is a bit shortsighted.
Jesus knew He was creating social divisions with His spoken word.
That His teachings against temporal violence would be a bone of contention. He was in no way condoning or inciting any kind of violence. He was simply using ” the sword” as the euphemism it was in His time on the planet, a euphemism for struggle between opposing ideals or groups.
In Luke 19:27, a scripture is once again being misused by being taken completely out of context.
Read everything before and after, Jesus is telling a story, which includes a character that He is quoting, He is not making a commandment to kill. He is using a character in a parable to make a point. The statement “But as for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me.” , if taken from a bible in which “mine” has a capital “M” is obviously a bad translation, as Jesus was not making a statement, He was quoting the character in the parables statement.
Not only is this an abused scripture, TCB has quite obviously missed the point of the parable.
Once again, western “Christianity” tends to abuse Christianity by trying to incorporate political idealism and propaganda into it, which is bad both for politics AND Christianity.
Read every word Jesus Himself spoke, and you will find no place in which He commands anything but pacifism ( again, I would not classify myself as a pacifist, as I said, I am not a stranger to the possibility of using extreme violence in self defense , something I try not to succumb to, but in a necessary situation would not hesitate to do).
But again, I refuse to buy into the notion of twisting scripture to fit my lifestyle, as seems to be western cultures way of dealing with “faith”.
Jesus is a pacifist. Read every word in red letters ( in context) , read the beatitudes.
Blessed are the peacemakers sums about everything Jesus taught on the subject up.
“Swords had far more uses than simply as weapons. They were tools, as well as weapons against dangerous animals and for hunting meat as well as processing it.”
Perhaps so. And you can hammer in a tent peg with a Beretta M-9. But that doesn’t mean it stops being a firearm – a device which has but one true purpose.
“A sword to middle easterners…”
Judea and Galilee are not the Middle East.
“…“the sword” also refers to the Bible itself…”
That is very true. However, my intention is to argue against your false assertion that Messiah was a pacifist who taught pacifism. Being a proponent of peace does not make a person a pacifist.
“To simply take a scripture out of context and assume it means violence and war is a bit shortsighted.”
I posted the Scripture verbatim. You are the one assuming the verse has a limited meaning. You are the one imposing false limitations over the verses, friend. Not I. You are the one demanding that a sword is used for everything BUT that which a sword was created for; and demanding that the word ‘sword’ means anything and everything BUT what the word actually means. Looking for a deeper meaning and understanding to the verses of Scripture is not a bad idea. But when we ignore the simple and most obvious meanings to go off looking for what we assume MUST be there, then we will get ourselves into trouble every time. I do not say that Messiah was an advocate for violence – especially as meted out by men. What I do say is that He was no pacifist, and that to classify Him as a pacifist is to misapprehend very important elements of what and who HE IS. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the notion of unconditional love is a spurious, even a demonic, idea. TRUE love is never unconditional. It can’t be. And that is why true love carries a sword.
“Jesus knew He was creating social divisions with His spoken word.”
Not only social divisions but political, familial and spiritual divisions. He creates a division between a man and his own flesh. GOD is all about division – the separation of things: Day and Night. Clean and unclean. Good and evil. Spirit Nature and Beast Nature.
“He was in no way condoning or inciting any kind of violence.”
He is not an inciter of violence. But he NEVER taught that violence can never be met with violence. He did not teach it, friend. You are inserting your own doctrine into the Scriptures. Who do you think was talking to us in the Old Testament? Who is THE LORD GOD of the Books of Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms and the Proverbs? And do you think HE was a pacifist? And does HE ever change?
“He was simply using ” the sword” as the euphemism it was in His time on the planet, a euphemism for struggle between opposing ideals or groups.”
You are attempting to limit His language. You shouldn’t do that. Clearly you have a doctrine to protect which is more important to you than the words of Scripture themselves. This calls for careful consideration – and I am not accusing you, friend. I am only reporting to you what I see.
“In Luke 19:27, a scripture is once again being misused by being taken completely out of context.
Read everything before and after, Jesus is telling a story, which includes a character that He is quoting…”
A character He is quoting? Are you serious? So you think the Nobleman who went on a journey to a faraway place to receive His Kingdom… is someone ELSE? Well. It is no wonder you’re having as difficult a time with the Word of God as you are. You are not letting the Word do the teaching.
“He is using a character in a parable to make a point.”
Really? And just what is that point?
“Not only is this an abused scripture, TCB has quite obviously missed the point of the parable.”
Again… I await your explanation for the meaning of this ‘parable.’
“I would not classify myself as a pacifist…”
Good. But you are wrong to classify our King as a pacifist. He is no pacifist.
“Blessed are the peacemakers…”
It is better to make peace than to make war. It is better to heal than to hurt. I argue not against these principles. I argue only against your false assertion that they were taught by a pacifist. Almost the very first thing HE PROMISES He will do on His return, is to begin SLAYING the enemy. Do I imagine that as well? Shall I show you these words in the Book?
Please explain to me your understanding of the ‘parable’ from Luke 19.
The swords primary use was as a tool, and as a weapon against animals, not men. Again, that it could also be used for self defense does not make that its’ main purpose.
Only militiaries used it primarily as a weapon. Most used it , once again, primarily as a survival tool.
That you do not know that Judea and and Galilee are both smack dab in the Middle East is evidence that you not only didn’t do well in middle school geography, you also appear to not have payed attention in Sunday school.
You did not quote that scripture as it is, you represented it as Jesus making a statement, which He was not doing, he was quoting someone else, possibly someone who was fictional for the purpose of parable.
You obviously haven’t a clue about scripture or how to read it.
You quoted it entirely out of context, and tried to make it appear that it was the words of Deity by capitalizing “mine”, which was not the statement of Jesus, as I say, it is the statement of someone else, that He is merely using for example.
You not only misquoted it, you did in no way post it “verbatim”.
The point of the parable is quite obviously about a despotic king who rewarded those who obeyed him wisely, and took from those who did not. And the despotic king is who Jesus quoted.
Jesus was, as He very often did, using a temporal example His apostles and/or the Pharisees and other religious leaders of the day could understand.
He was obviously making the point that even despotic rulers will reward the pragmatic and obedient and penalize the slothful and disobedient.
That you cannot see this baffles me.
The Torah does indeed say “thou shall not kill”, it does not say “thou shall not murder.
In no legitimate translation was the word “murder” translated from the Hebrew or Greek from the word “kill”.
Which is obviously moot, being as Jesus set a much higher standard by overiding “an eye with an eye” with “turn the other cheek”.
Mathew 5:38.
“The swords primary use was as a tool, and as a weapon against animals, not men.”
With what do you support this assertion? And if you are correct, then why had Messiah previously told the disciples to take nothing with them when they went out into the land?
“Only militiaries used it primarily as a weapon.”
Again, this is but unsupported contention.
“That you do not know that Judea and and Galilee are both smack dab in the Middle East is evidence that you not only didn’t do well in middle school geography…”
Oh? And what then is the NEAR East if Israel is the Middle East? [I just looked and found maps that agree with you. But you should do the same and find the numerous maps that agree with me. Again I ask, if Israel is the middle of the Middle East, then where is the Near East?]
“…you also appear to not have payed attention in Sunday school.”
You assume I attended Sunday school and that I was raised a Christian? Why do you assume such things?
“You did not quote that scripture as it is, you represented it as Jesus making a statement, which He was not doing…”
I quoted a Scripture. In the Scripture I quoted, Jesus was speaking. His words were specific and they were instructional.
“…he was quoting someone else, possibly someone who was fictional for the purpose of parable.”
This is an outright fabrication. If He was quoting someone else, as you just now have said, then provide me with evidence for that. You see friend, you’ve just wandered brazenly into the realm of invention so that you might support your contention. Is it a quote? HOW do you know that? And what is a parable, if not a linguistic construct organized specifically for teaching a specific lesson. WHAT is the lesson Messiah is trying to teach His hearers by speaking this ‘parable’ to them?
“You obviously haven’t a clue about scripture or how to read it.”
One of us is merely quoting Scripture. The other is continuously putting forth unsupported and unsupportable suggestions about what those Scriptures mean.
“You quoted it entirely out of context…”
So you say. Then please provide me with the proper context and please do so with more than just your opinion. Provide the reasons for WHY you argue as you do. Don’t just point over ‘there’ and say ‘Jesus was quoting THAT guy.’ Show me why you think so. And don’t just lean on your own doctrine to prove your own doctrine. Show me from the WORD.
“You not only misquoted it, you did in no way post it “verbatim”.”
I posted a direct quotation from a widely accepted English Translation and I posted it verbatim – which means word-for-word. Should I have posted it in Greek for you? I would be happy to do that. We can discuss the verses in Greek if you like.
“The point of the parable is quite obviously about a despotic king who rewarded those who obeyed him wisely, and took from those who did not. And the despotic king is who Jesus quoted.”
This is your explanation of the ‘parable’? Tell me then, why would Jesus have uttered such words to His hearers if, as you say, they applied only to some despotic king? What is the point?
“He was obviously making the point that even despotic rulers will reward the pragmatic and obedient and penalize the slothful and disobedient.”
Even despotic leaders will penalize the slothful and disobedient. You say ‘EVEN.’ Thus you admit that the pattern is one of comparison, and that OUR KING will likewise penalize the slothful and the disobedient. So I ask you again, what evidence have you that Messiah wasn’t talking about Himself in the passage? If the imaginary despotic king does the same things that THE KING will do, then why insert the imaginary king in the first place? What would be the point? Your own sentence construction indicates very plainly that you agree with this understanding. And then you wrote:
“That you cannot see this baffles me.”
Which tells me yet further that you agree.
“The Torah does indeed say “thou shall not kill”, it does not say “thou shall not murder.”
So you say. Then let us go to the Hebrew:
SHEMOT 13:20
לא תרצח׃ ס
תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃ VERB = DO MURDER
From the word רָצַח RATSACH meaning to MURDER or to slay:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7523.htm
“In no legitimate translation was the word “murder” translated from the Hebrew…”
You are ignorant of the Hebrew. Look into the link provided. Look up the word in any concordance you like. Look up the word in any Hebrew/English dictionary. This isn’t a matter of opinion. It is a matter of linguistic fact. Your opinion is wrong and provably so.
“Which is obviously moot, being as Jesus set a much higher standard by overiding “an eye with an eye” with “turn the other cheek”.”
Messiah did no such thing. He merely taught that, even though the LAW demands an eye for an eye – we ourselves are not judges of the Law. We are to turn the other cheek if someone strikes us. We are not to mete out judgment according to the Law because IF WE DO, then we will become beholden to the Law ourselves, FOR:
Matthew 7:2
…with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
THAT is why we are to turn the other cheek. We are not to take vengeance. We are not to REPAY. But at NO TIME did Messiah EVER teach or preach that we are not to protect or defend women, children, or those in our charge and care.
“Is it right to employ lethal force to protect the life of yourself and others? Is it right to take measures that might kill an attacker who is wrongfully threatening your life or the life of another?”
Yes. It is 100% right.
“Self-defense is not about punishing criminals.”
No, but God’s Law explains that as being a duty we have towards one another, too.
Is it nice? No. Is it nice to have to clean out the mold growing in your house? No. But you better do it. Otherwise, the problem just keeps spreading and getting worse and more harmful.
Keeping our “house” clean, is a responsibility we ALL share in.
We are to Love one another. We should therefore also be helping each other, especially with the harder things, instead of letting criminals, who have lost control of themselves, keep causing harm to our neighbors and to ourselves.
Take care.
You are quite simply wrong, and using assumptions for your opinion.
Once again, I would far prefer that if somebody walks in my house without my permission that they leave on a stretcher. Which, if self defense were needed , I would very likely resort to.
But my personal opinions and actions do not override what the Bible said.
If I were of the will to be a very strict Biblically obedient Christian, I would not act in self defense.
If you are under “Gods law” as the Levitical law is often called, fine. But don’t ascribe it to the teachings of Christ. Again, He set a much higher standard, one of benevolence and mercy rather than retribution.
Which once again, I personally have a tough time living up to.
And do not claim to.
But if you claim to, do not bend scripture to meet your quirks. God isn’t fooled by that.
As I showed above, Jesus overrode the law with a much higher standard, we are under grace, not the Levitical laws.
Jesus very succinctly said that He commands “turn the other cheek” rather than “an eye for an eye” when it comes to both criminal prosecution and self defense. This is very plainly spoken and not hard to understand, the meaning is quite apparent.
If he tries to take your coat, give him your cloak also. I forget where that one is but I am sure you are familiar with it.
Jesus was indeed teaching pacifism.
Something I cannot claim to practice.
But I will not pretend He was not just because I can’t bring myself to live up to it.
Tut-tut.
The word used in the ten commandments for kill is inclusive to “murder” but not limited to.
In reality it means any destructive behavior toward someone , INCLUDING murder, but also killing or slaying.
That it includes murder does not mean it is limited to.
Once again, your attempt to alter scripture by omitting some of the meanings of the word doesn’t fly.
Which, as I say, is again quite moot, being as Jesus very plainly overrides “an eye for an eye”.
So, perhaps for a practicing Jew it might be ok to kill as long as it is not murder.
But practicing Christians are not practicing the Levitical law. Jesus is quite blatantly saying it is wrong to kill, period.
“Tut-tut.”
Wrong king, Rocky.
“The word used in the ten commandments for kill is inclusive to “murder” but not limited to.
In reality it means any destructive behavior toward someone , INCLUDING murder, but also killing or slaying.”
What is this? Is this more of your opinion? Or is this something you copied from some other source. Did you notice how I supplied you with reference material above, which you could then easily verify for yourself to see whether or not I was merely supplying you with my opinion? You might try that sometime. Because what you are saying NOW contradicts what you said above when you wrote:
“In no legitimate translation was the word “murder” translated from the Hebrew or Greek from the word “kill”.”
Which of course is wrong anyway, as we see from the following, perfectly legitimate translations included with:
New International Version
You shall not murder.
New Living Translation
You must not murder.
English Standard Version
You shall not murder.
New American Standard Bible
You shall not murder.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Do not murder.
International Standard Version
You are not to commit murder.
NET Bible
You shall not murder.
GOD’S WORD® Translation
Never murder.
But don’t take my word for it – look it up for yourself:
http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm
I think we get the idea.
“That it includes murder does not mean it is limited to.”
I never said the word was exclusively translated only one way. But as you see plainly from the evidence I just provided, your demanded translation is very much in the archaic minority. Not only is your translation dated, it is improved by the sense conveyed with the word ‘murder.’ There are altogether different words in Hebrew which one would use in order to convey a strict sense of the word ‘kill.’
“Once again, your attempt to alter scripture by omitting some of the meanings of the word doesn’t fly.”
Well, unless you’re a King James Onlyist (perish the thought), you will see by now that your suggestion is erroneous.
“Which, as I say, is again quite moot, being as Jesus very plainly overrides “an eye for an eye”.”
Jesus at no time ‘overrides’ the Law of God by anything He did or said. He came to demonstrate right-understanding of the Law – not to overturn or ‘override’ it. This we know because He said so in very plain language.
“So, perhaps for a practicing Jew it might be ok to kill as long as it is not murder.”
It’s okay for us too. If GOD has put on your heart NEVER to kill another person, no matter what, then that’s an issue between you and Him. Because He does NOT teach us any such thing in the Bible. There are plenty of exceptions I can think of which would have the believer killing while at the same time doing so without violating what the Law teaches or what Jesus preached. I have even shared a few of them with you in what I posted earlier.
“But practicing Christians are not practicing the Levitical law.”
True. Because ‘practicing’ Christians (by which I can only assume you mean Bible-believing Christians) practice the Law of God the way it was explained to us by our Savior. Or at least, that is what is required of them according to His Commandment.
“Jesus is quite blatantly saying it is wrong to kill, period.”
SHOW ME where He ever said anything of the kind.
But a few translations, of which there are many, many of which say “kill”.
Which, as I said, the earliest text of the Torah known use a word that translates as kill, slay, and murder all inclusive.
All of which, as I say, for the purposes of the Christian faith is quite moot.
Once again, if you are viewing the Bible from a Christian perspective, Jesus fulfilled the law and set a higher standard.
Again: Mathew 5:38
It is a scripture that is quite unambiguous.
But again, the teachings of Christ do not fit into the extremely violent western culture mindset, and western Christianity/politics (both of which have been tainted by each other) brainwashing runs quite deep.
“Which, as I said, the earliest text of the Torah known use a word that translates as kill, slay, and murder all inclusive.”
If you mean to suggest that some older text of the Book of Genesis shows a different Hebrew word than the one I quoted above, I will tell you you are mistaken and ask you to support your claim with something other than mere assertion. I quoted from the Masoretic Text. There are indeed older Manuscripts extant, but I maintain they all use precisely the same Hebrew word (trə·ṣāḥ) תרצח which is a verb meaning DO MURDER, which is preceded by לא (lō), meaning NOT.
“All of which, as I say, for the purposes of the Christian faith is quite moot.”
There’s nothing moot about any of this. This is all very pertinent to our topic.
“Jesus fulfilled the law and set a higher standard.”
Jesus fulfilled the Law and showed us a pure and perfect understanding of the Law. And if you are one of the believers who thinks that because He fulfilled the Law, we don’t have to, then you’re likely in for a big surprise when eventually you encounter real authority on the matter. As indeed you one day will.
“Again: Mathew 5:38… …It is a scripture that is quite unambiguous.”
Let us examine the verse:
Matthew 5:38
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
Well, that’s not very informative for our purposes, is it? Let’s continue the passage:
Matthew 5:39
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. (ESV)
See that first period there making two sentences where there should be only one? Well that period is an invention of late scribes. No punctuation at all is found anywhere in the oldest Greek Manuscripts. And in fact, where punctuation between those sentences exists in the Greek Manuscripts today, the punctuation used is the Greek version of the semicolon, not a period. So the verse in question looks like this:
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ’ ὅστις σε ῥαπίσει ἐπί τὴν δεξιὰν σου σιαγόνα στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
This version of the passage contains no periods, but rather the Greek semicolon, which is a single point elevated above the bottom of the line of text. And in Greek, what looks like the English semicolon is actually a question mark.
Therefore, when He teaches not to resist the one who is evil, He IMMEDIATELY goes on to explain just which one He means. He explains that the one who is striking you on the cheek is the evil one we are not to resist. He teaches us not to raise a hand in defense of our own bodies. And guess what? I agree with that teaching. That’s the plain teaching found in the text. But what is NOT in the text you keep citing is ANY prohibition against protecting the people under our care. NO such prohibition exists anywhere in the Scriptures and I maintain you will not be able to show me a verse or passage that says otherwise.
“But again, the teachings of Christ do not fit into the extremely violent western culture mindset…”
I’m not defending western culture. I am offering you an apologetic of the Word of God.
I wrote:
“If you mean to suggest that some older text of the Book of Genesis shows a different Hebrew word than the one I quoted above…”
By Genesis I meant Exodus. Some of us can’t even keep our Moses straight.
“Some of us can’t even keep our Moses straight.”
After watching the new Exodus movie I keep picturing Moses as looking like Christian Bale, who is a complete dick. Ugh.
Everybody knows the real Moses looked like Charlton Heston, not like Batman.
You are splitting hairs in an attempt to prove the unprovable.
No matter where the period is, the meaning is still the same.
Jesus is obviously saying that there is a higher standard of mercy and grace rather than parity retribution.
Any way you look at it.
And don’t misunderstand me, I would like to think myself a pacifist and live up to the scriptures, but I am not and likely could not.
I simply do not bend scripture to suit my lifestyle. When it comes to dealing with bad situations, I tend to sin.
I am a performing musician and occasionally am in a situation of having to deal with a drunk or a smartass, and am a rather intimidating looking as well as physically very strong fellow, and tend to use that to my advantage.
As well as grew up in a bad area and was exposed to violence quite young. I knew how to bust the bottom of a beer bottle off against a curb before I had pubes.
But I by no means justify that behavior.
As I say, I haven’t reached that level of Christianity, but I will not attempt to lower the bar to my level.
I do, however, have a very slow temper and keep it in check, and resort to no more than it takes to solve a problem.
I overlook simple mistakes such as Genesis/Exodus, I got your meaning and your point.
I also believe that sin is forgivable, and that violence is indeed a forgivable sin, but it is indeed a sin.
And the word that is used for “thou shall not kill” is , as I say, a word that covers all killing, including murder, not exclusive to.
We are not under the law, if we were your wife would be required to go into hiding when having a period and you would be required to take part in stoning whores.
Again, Jesus set a higher standard.
And I think most of the Leviticus law had to do with preservation of the species, and had pragmatic purposes rather than purely religious symbolism.
For example, one whore with a communicable disease could have wiped out an entire culture with disease.
I believe Jesus showed up on the scene at about the same time men started gaining greater knowledge including the practice of medicine.
I don’t think God demanded whores be stoned because of some religious ceremony and principal, I believe it was simply because a whore was dangerous prior to mankind understanding the cause of disease and how to deal with it.
The same with the food laws.
“You are splitting hairs in an attempt to prove the unprovable.”
Nonsense. All I’m doing is keeping a door open you’re trying to slam shut.
“No matter where the period is, the meaning is still the same.”
That is precisely so. He calls attention to an evil one and then He expounds immediately upon who He meant, exactly. Biblical language works like that in a great many instances.
“Jesus is obviously saying that there is a higher standard of mercy and grace rather than parity retribution.”
Again, I would agree with that statement. If you had paid careful attention to what I’ve been saying all along, you would see that I nowhere advocate for revenge. Revenge is not permitted to the Bible believer. But defending those who cannot defend themselves from an imminent threat is most assuredly NOT the same thing as revenge. THIS is the fine-point I would call attention to. Defense of others and revenge. There is a difference.
“I simply do not bend scripture to suit my lifestyle.”
You have said so enough times now. The implication there is that anyone who argues as I am arguing, is in fact bending Scripture. But there is nothing in the Word to rule out my argument. If there was, you would have provided it by now and shut down this entire conversation.
“As I say, I haven’t reached that level of Christianity, but I will not attempt to lower the bar to my level.”
So? Then turn the other cheek if you are struck in the face. And good luck with that. Sincerely. But if you ever have to protect women and children (or even adults in a scenario like the terrorist scenario I mentioned earlier), then you may do so swiftly and decisively but within the confines of mercy. Mercy means that you employ no more force than is absolutely necessary. That might mean taking a life in some cases. But if you must take a life, then you must do so swiftly and mercifully. Care must be taken to ensure at all times that defense does not bleed over into revenge. If you shoot an attacker once and he immediately drops his weapon and ceases his assault, then it would be a sin to continue your counter attack and inflict yet further harm on him. You may call this splitting hairs, but these are actually crucial distinctions which must be made in the event any circumstances of this kind should ever come upon a believer. Brother, believe me – I take the Word of God very seriously. And if I am ever called to defend those who cannot defend themselves from harm of the kind we’re discussing, I will do all I can to see that I provide that defense but that I do so within the confines of the limits set by the Scriptures. Vengeance is not mine.
“I overlook simple mistakes such as Genesis/Exodus, I got your meaning and your point.”
Much obliged.
“I also believe that sin is forgivable, and that violence is indeed a forgivable sin, but it is indeed a sin.”
Not all violence is a sin. It can’t be. Otherwise the LORD GOD has asked His people to sin in the Old Testament. My entire point is and has been that there are occasions when violence is not a sin. You may argue that the Old Testament is no longer a valid pattern to consider when examining this issue. But I would call your attention again to the fact that GREAT violence is promised at the coming of our Lord. He promises to be the dealer of a legendary, a stupendous, a BIBLICAL level of violence at the end of this age. Therefore, all violence cannot be sin.
“And the word that is used for “thou shall not kill” is, as I say, a word that covers all killing, including murder, not exclusive to.”
The point is this: The Commandment does not prohibit all killing. It prohibits killing of a very specific kind. Thus, the point of this exercise.
“We are not under the law…”
That doesn’t mean we’re not beholden to the Law, as it was explained to us by our King. Stoning our brethren isn’t something we should be doing. Why? Because Jesus showed us that we are wrong to demand that our brethren be punished according to the Law, when we ourselves are breakers of the Law. We must not demand one level of justice for some and another level of justice for ourselves. That was His intended lesson when He said to the Pharisees: ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…’ But by no means did He eliminate the penalty for the crimes enumerated in the Law. What He did was make it clear that all of us are worthy to be stoned. And therefore we had better think twice about demanding that anyone else be called upon to pay what he owes when we ourselves stand deserving of the very same penalty.
“Again, Jesus set a higher standard.”
All He did was to demonstrate the Law in its proper context. We had been looking at the Law through the eyes of man. He taught us to view the Law through the eyes of the Spirit.
“I don’t think God demanded whores be stoned because of some religious ceremony and principal…”
He didn’t leave us in the dark about that. Fornication in the flesh is an abomination. But the lessons Scripture teaches us should have us looking for the spiritual meaning of all such ‘shadows’ in the flesh. And the Bible is far from silent on spiritual fornication. The Bible covers actual sexual congress between flesh and flesh, between spirit and flesh, and it covers (in great depth) the utter abomination of spiritual fornication, which is the purest form of idolatry. Therefore, if stoning whores had anything to do with preventing the spread of diseases of the flesh, it was only a very small portion of the reason for the commandment. That’s why He advises us to meditate all day on the Law – something King David did and something all of us should still be doing. God has spoken authoritatively on spiritual fornication. Fornication in the flesh is but a type.
“I believe it was simply because a whore was dangerous prior to mankind understanding the cause of disease and how to deal with it.”
God’s Laws are NEVER that simple. There are always myriad reasons behind each and every one of the Laws He gave us.
“The same with the food laws.”
Oh? I guess that leaves you eating ham and bacon. But Christianity teaches the ‘food laws’ have been done away with. Right? The problem with that is, the Book says nothing of the kind. Another problem is that in the final chapters of the Book of Isaiah, God is condemning the people of the end of this age. And one of the charges He levels against them is their eating of pork. We are not to be eaters of pork. There are health reasons for that. There are reasons pertaining to cleanliness. There are physical reasons and there are spiritual reasons. Everything that happens in the flesh and in nature is full of meaning we can learn from which may then be applied to the spiritual. That’s what Paul meant by looking for the Word of God written in the natural world.
Just keep on believing all this apostate western faux “Christianity” that is in reality just another politcal propaganda tool all you want.
If you are so brainwashed that nobody can get you to see past the bullshit you have been fed by Satans minions, I certainly won’t be able to get you to actually read what the bible says without pre-conceived
social programming tainted by secular political idealism.
Jesus was indeed preaching complete pacifism to an extreme. All this corrupt “left behind” and all the other politically corrupted convolution of Christianity for the purpose of special interest nonsense is a tool of Satan.
Go learn how to conduct yourself according to the Word before you ever dare to correct anyone’s doctrine again.
You’re dismissed.
I am not dismissed, and even in person you couldn’t possibly cause me to be.
If you can’t legitimately debate, don’t resort to childish behavior in order to cover for the fact.
And before you assume yourself to know doctrine, examine your own heart to see where your desire to spread and condone violence comes from.
You’re distressed.
So telling people to drop dead is extreme pacifism. What Jesus would tell them?
“If you can’t legitimately debate, don’t resort to childish behavior in order to cover for the fact.”
No offense, Rockledge, but I just read through the entire debate between TCB and yourself above in this comment thread. It is obviously you who can’t legitimately debate and it is obviously you who has resorted to childish behavior in order to cover facts.
“And before you assume yourself to know doctrine, examine your own heart to see where your desire to spread and condone violence comes from.”
Where is he condoning violence? Violence is obviously distinctly different from a situation of self-preservation during an attack, or defense of others, as he has very clearly pointed out. You’re just not getting it.
That last sentence I quoted you on reeks of the sort of arrogance I’ve recently seen from Deborah Dupree on her articles. It amounts to pretending as if you’re taking some sort of righteous high road, while at the same time making a passive-aggressive poke at the person you’re conversing with.
It would seem to me as if you’ve run out of ammo. Eh?
@Rockledge
A study upon the words used, with particular attention to the words that were not used, reveals much.
The 1st and 2nd giving of this Law (Ex 20:13 & Deut 5:17) both have it H7523 – ratsach – “manslayer” – to murder, slay and the other 45 occurrences, in the Bible, overwhelmingly imply that indeed murder is what is meant.
Interestingly H2026 – harag – “killed” – to kill, slay and H5221 – nakah – “strike” – to smite were both overlooked by God when he had Moses rewrite the The Commandments.
Of course this commandment was carried through to the New-Testament (Matthew 5:21-22; 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 1:29-30; 13:9) which has as it’s root G5408 – phonos – murder, slaughter, killing and once again the context, of all 9 occurrences, most definitely makes it clear that unjustified killing is what is meant.
Interestingly the Apostles could have used G615 – apokteinó or apoktennó – “put to death, kill” – to kill but weren’t inspired to do so. I wonder why.
In light of this it becomes apparent that TCB has made the stronger argument and i surely won’t be the only one noticing that TCB quotes the word while Rockledge adds to it.
Tut-tut!
The “The Commandments”, aw shucks, please excuse the lapse.
How old ARE you? Queer.
I have a feeling Rockledge will not come back to this conversation. We all know why.
Also, “I’m Aden” …
Of the thousands of your comments I’ve probably read at this point I’ve only been able to make any sort of logical sense of your gibberish about 2 or 3 times. You can’t even make yourself understandable here, let alone relevant.
So “How old ARE you?” Dyke.