Forwarded from Apostolic Nations
Forwarded from Victorian Dawn
☦️ Is The Sermon On The Mount Pacifist?
The key term is ἀνθίστημι (anthistémi), translated “resist.” Lexicons such as HELPS Word Studies and Thayer’s define it as a strong, active opposition. It is an intentional, forceful stance against something. As usual, the nuance of the Greek gets lost when translated to English. A more literal translation would be:
This makes sense, as if this is about personal conflict (which will be affirmed later in this argument), an unyielding opposition to someone hardly creates a forgiving or productive environment. Also, it cannot refer to resisting the devil, since James 4:7 explicitly commands believers to resist (anthistémi) the devil.
We should take a step back to Matt. 5:38, where Christ references the Old Testament:
That phrase originates in Exodus 21:22–25, where it is clearly a standard for the judges. In Exodus 21:22, “the court decides.”. But in Christ's case, there is no court established and he is speaking freely to a crowd of individuals. These individuals would be kin, brothers, fellow Israelites.
With that context, “turn the other cheek” should be read as an instruction to de-escalate feuds, not to tolerate aggression forever or take the weakest stance against injustice.
Not only that, we have Christ's own life to draw from to help us understand this. In Matt. 21:12 and John 2:15, Christ makes a whip, drives out the merchants, and overturns tables. The text states that he “drove them all out,” referring to both people and livestock. This makes no sense with a pacifist reading.
In John 18:22–23, Christ is struck by an officer of the High Priest. Rather than “turning the other cheek,” he demands a reason: “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike me?”
There are four possible answers as to why Christ did not turn the cheek.
1. Christ was saying to turn the cheek in personal or inter-familial conflict, among neighbors, where feuds would be detrimental to a community.
2. Christ was saying to understand the circumstances of a feud/fight with someone before engaging, and to engage rationally.
3. Christ did not apply his own teaching.
4. John forgot to include Christ turning the other cheek.
The possibility that he simply ignored his own teaching is inconsistent with what we know of his life. The idea that John omitted something is pure speculation. Only the first two explanations explain the text and Christ’s character.
Then, when we get to Christ's command to "love your enemies" in Matt. 5:44, he uses the word ἐχθρός (echthros), which no lexicon defines as “invader” or “physical assailant.”. Again, Christ is addressing feuds within a community.
In conclusion, any attempt to draw a pacifist teaching from the Sermon and Christ's character fails. In fact, Christ's advocacy for racial love is affirmed.
𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐚𝐰𝐧
Matthew 5:39
“But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.”
The key term is ἀνθίστημι (anthistémi), translated “resist.” Lexicons such as HELPS Word Studies and Thayer’s define it as a strong, active opposition. It is an intentional, forceful stance against something. As usual, the nuance of the Greek gets lost when translated to English. A more literal translation would be:
"Do not place yourself in complete opposition to the evildoer.”
This makes sense, as if this is about personal conflict (which will be affirmed later in this argument), an unyielding opposition to someone hardly creates a forgiving or productive environment. Also, it cannot refer to resisting the devil, since James 4:7 explicitly commands believers to resist (anthistémi) the devil.
We should take a step back to Matt. 5:38, where Christ references the Old Testament:
Matthew 5:38
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.'"
That phrase originates in Exodus 21:22–25, where it is clearly a standard for the judges. In Exodus 21:22, “the court decides.”. But in Christ's case, there is no court established and he is speaking freely to a crowd of individuals. These individuals would be kin, brothers, fellow Israelites.
With that context, “turn the other cheek” should be read as an instruction to de-escalate feuds, not to tolerate aggression forever or take the weakest stance against injustice.
Not only that, we have Christ's own life to draw from to help us understand this. In Matt. 21:12 and John 2:15, Christ makes a whip, drives out the merchants, and overturns tables. The text states that he “drove them all out,” referring to both people and livestock. This makes no sense with a pacifist reading.
In John 18:22–23, Christ is struck by an officer of the High Priest. Rather than “turning the other cheek,” he demands a reason: “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike me?”
There are four possible answers as to why Christ did not turn the cheek.
1. Christ was saying to turn the cheek in personal or inter-familial conflict, among neighbors, where feuds would be detrimental to a community.
2. Christ was saying to understand the circumstances of a feud/fight with someone before engaging, and to engage rationally.
3. Christ did not apply his own teaching.
4. John forgot to include Christ turning the other cheek.
The possibility that he simply ignored his own teaching is inconsistent with what we know of his life. The idea that John omitted something is pure speculation. Only the first two explanations explain the text and Christ’s character.
Then, when we get to Christ's command to "love your enemies" in Matt. 5:44, he uses the word ἐχθρός (echthros), which no lexicon defines as “invader” or “physical assailant.”. Again, Christ is addressing feuds within a community.
In conclusion, any attempt to draw a pacifist teaching from the Sermon and Christ's character fails. In fact, Christ's advocacy for racial love is affirmed.
𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐚𝐰𝐧
Forwarded from Faith And Folk
Forwarded from Faith And Folk
RP Classics: “The Negro a Beast, or, In the Image of God? (1900)
by Charles Caroll…”
Read Article: www.group-telegram.com/RP_Classics/571.
by Charles Caroll…”
Read Article: www.group-telegram.com/RP_Classics/571.
Telegram
RP Classics
The Negro a Beast, or, In the Image of God? (1900)
by Charles Caroll
by Charles Caroll
Forwarded from This Is Europa
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Our White Lives Matter #OWLM
❤1
Forwarded from Faith And Folk
Forwarded from Faith And Folk
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.
Colossians 3:2
#BB @FaithAndFolk3
Colossians 3:2
#BB @FaithAndFolk3
❤1
Forwarded from This Is Europa
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Our White Lives Matter #OWLM
Forwarded from This Is Europa
Forwarded from Faith And Folk