I believe the difference we see between the instructions God gave through Moses and the instructions Jesus passed on to His disciples is that God was setting up a civil governmnet through Moses while Jesus was establishing a church. A civil government must deal with a multitude of activities which are not applicable to churches. Governments set up laws regarding behaviour, business methods, finances and taxes, relations with other countries, etc. Romans 13:4 seems to say that God still authorizes civil governments to apply the same punishments in New Testament times that He did in the Old Testament except that the government is no longer a theocracy as it was in Moses day.

The church deals with entirely different activities. The most the church can do with incorrigibles is to ask them to leave. As Jesus put it, the sword is not a part of church building activities. But as noted above, He did want his workers to be able to defend themselves.

Bob Lee

I think "turn the other cheek" is pretty specific. If Jesus was our example, and he was viciously beaten and murdered, then shouldn't we be acting like Him?

I do not recall Peter, Paul, or any other of the disciples "defending themselves" with any metal sword; as I read it they all died defenseless in the hands of an entire civilization as ruthless as any viscious criminal we may face today.
As far as attacks by criminals and such: do we not have a God who protects, those who love Him and His Law more them life itself? Is God's hand shortened so that He will not preserve those that obey Him?
I have 2 books by Elder W.A. Spicer of over 600 pages that contain nothing but examples of God's actual intervention in christian's lives to save them from death. None of them carried a 6 shooter or knew Kung-fu...just in case God "slipped up."

Take a slow read at this, please:

"Then Judas, with his band of armed men, appeared. He approached his Master as usual, to salute Him. The band surrounded Jesus; but there He manifested His divine power, as He said, "Whom seek ye?" "I am He." They fell backward to the ground. Jesus made this inquiry that they might witness His power and have evidence that He could deliver Himself from their hands if He would.
The disciples began to hope as they saw the multitude with their staves and swords fall so quickly. As they arose and again surrounded the Son of God, Peter drew his sword and smote a servant of the high priest and cut off an ear. Jesus bade him to put up the sword, saying, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels?" I saw that as these words were spoken, the countenances of the angels were animated with hope. They wished then and there to surround their Commander and disperse that angry mob. But again sadness settled upon them, as Jesus added, "But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" The hearts of the disciples also sank in despair and bitter disappointment, as Jesus suffered Himself to be led away by His enemies." {Early Writings page 167.3}

Boblee and Zyph: I personally agree wholeheartedly with your posts. In the Old Testament, Israel was under a theocracy where God ruled in the civil and religious affairs of the nation.

"It is true that the rule 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (Lev.24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses, but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord: 'Say not thou, I will recompense evil.' 'Say not, I will do to him as he hath to me.' 'Rejoice not when thine enemy faileth.' 'If he that hateth thee be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.'" Prov.20:22; 24:29,17; 25:21,22.

The whole earthly life of Jesus was a manifestation of this principle. It was to bring the bread of life to his enemies that our Savior left His home in Heaven. Though calamity and persecution were heaped upon Him from the cradle to the grave, they called forth from Him only the expression of forgiving love. Through the prophet Isaiah He says, 'I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not My face from shame and spitting.'... and from the cross of Calvary there come down through the ages His prayer for His murderers and the message of hope to the dying thief." M.B.70,71.

[ October 16, 2002, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

Amen, AB!

Does turning the other cheek include what may be taken as personally offensive things that are posted in MSDAOL or any other forum?

As a new member and having only scanned superficially the topic of this discussion the last post caught my eye. I believe if we follow the injunction to turn the other cheek and understand it to mean in context what seems to be said here, there would be little room for debate.

When people are offensive, rude, threatening and sometimes the extreme of being a danger to us, we must turn the other cheek. Perhaps this biblical instruction actually has a broader more common sense meaning.

Why would there be a difference in behaviour here or any other public venue and behaviour that was committed one on one.

Kat

Welcome Kat!

You put forth a very good point. It is a little bit of legalism to say that turning the other cheek only applies to when someone strikes me on the face isn't it? What did Jesus do when the people insulted and reviled Him?

Excellent point, both Kat and Sarah.

Also, let me also welcome you here, Kat, to Maritime SDA OnLine!

I think far to often we reply by rout, often not thinking and clearly defining what something means. While it is true that christ should always be our example, it is also true that the revilment and persecution Christ suffered was as a result of his "religious beliefs"his mission of salvation and redemption. To suffer at the hands of a demented or just plain evil mind just because they choose to is not quite the same thing. If we take only this statement of turn the other cheek and claim that Christ meant in all circumstances then we must ttruly mean it as well.
It is far to easy to use while speaking to another,but if you break it down into personal circumstances then it is usually found to be not quite what we meant. How would any of you react if your child was threatened with physical harm,your spouse, or you yourself? Would you passively stand there and let the harm take place.

These are not extremes, they happen in everyday life. Sometimes it may even require you to become quite forceful physically. Even when the consequences are not life threatening, then what?

Our churches, schools and even here as I read there are rules. If in the event of disruptive or harmful behaviour should we not just turn the other cheek.
I am more inclined to belief we are not to return evil for evil,or return revenge for evil down to us, but does not include turning the other cheek
in akk circumstances.

Kat