@Scoot ..before going on any further in this topic of discussion, I have to bring up the famous 'turn the other cheek' verse that has been paraded around as the verse that trumps those that think they should defend themselves by taking offensive action and the wearing of arms etc. Those that use it to justify disarming folks, misuse scripture; intentionally or out of ignorance. Their aim is to place guilt and shame and to disband others of these weapons. Many heathens and non-Christians love to use it as they twist it to their own purposes, many Globalists, the Papacy and UN types...along with unfortunately many misguided Christians.
Ok,,to the verses of Matt 5:38-42..it seems simple although is is not...
Now the way it was originally spoken and written is all important.
And English translations into their sentence have done no justice to it at all. Mades it confusing and controversial.
In verse 38, Jesus re-introduces the historical idea of getting revenge justice in kind for harm done to another. Justice, personal and communal was served this way. And still considered the way in Jesus's time. People killed another if they killed someone else and it was justifiable etc. This was more than just resisting evil people. It is important to know this law and tradition was beyond just resisting evil - for the next verses.
Jesus does not criticize this form of justice at all. He is using it to contrast and as a backdrop for what he is about to say in the next verse, verse 39. Verse 39 is not connected to verse 38. It is directly connected to verse 40.
The act of resisting evil (person) verse 39, in the strictest sense, means short of taking offensive action and not actually killing someone else. There is a distinct difference. The translated Greek for resistance and meaning is precise and does not mean going beyond resisting into killing or maiming someone. It means just that, resisting as in defending without fighting back and especially taking offensive action. I guess many people were trigger-happy many times and their acts were not justifiable, same goes for today as well.
So in verse 40, Jesus introduces a NEW concept based on a tradition already practiced in society. To clarify what is justifiable and not. This concept is actually practiced today and is biblically based.
Have you considered what the ritual or act of slapping someone on the cheek with a hand or a glove or even spitting on the side of the face meant? It is not only a Jew tradition per sa, of Jesus' time, others used it for the same reason. Now Jesus introduces this tradition with a twist. He now says do not get revenge as in a tooth for a tooth revenge form of justice he just spoke of, in verse 38, where you must go beyond resisting evil to offensive action. No, he says do not resist evil when someone slaps you on a cheek. He means that when someone INSULTS you, not threatens you with bodily harm as many think it says, to not resist this evil gesture. Let them keep insulting you as in the giving of the other cheek. The slapping of the face especially in public was considered the sign of utmost insult and shame for the receiver.
This saying has NOTHING to do with allowing someone to harm you then attempt to completely destroy you, physically, mentally, and even spiritually to the point where you need to take offensive action, that is justifiable. The world has used this verse to support their view that firearms and tools that can kill is not supported in the Bible. They are 'dead' wrong.
I guess I need to connect all these last 3 posts with the justification for National war etc
Bless you,
APAK
