Jesus Never Retaliated
I read Wild at Heart a few years ago, and there is a part where John Eldredge is counseling his son Blaine regarding a bully at school who had pushed him down. He says to him, "The next time that bully pushes you down...I want you to get up...and I want you to hit him...as hard as you possibly can."
Last night at church they had a guest speaker named Don who talked about humility. He spoke about how Jesus willingly died on the cross. Jesus was beaten, mocked, whipped until near-death, forced to wear a crown of thorns, and finally crucified.Not once did he strike back.
I dig Wild at Heart, but I don't know how to reconcile these two stories. What does the story of Jesus mean for us? How does that transpire in our lives at work, at school? If someone wrongs us, do we just let them? When do we stand up for ourselves, and when do we endure suffering?
Comments are welcome! :)
posted by Ian Davis @ 5:00 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Dude, I don't know. Maybe the question is whether retaliation shows love. I submit 1 John.
Driving home today from DC, I called someone a jackass for cutting in front of me and driving slowly. On the one hand, people need to understand that just because you're behind a truck in the right lane, you don't need to wait for a clear area in the left lane to pass it, and only 1 mph faster than the truck. That's like, instead of parking on the side of the road in a residential area, you park right in front of someone's driveway.
So, yeah, that person is clearly a moron.
And then I berated myself, apologized to the ignorant bastard, and thought to myself that judgement is far easier than... living like Jesus.
I find it very easy to judge, to be opinionated, and to want justice served with pain, or just the way that seems best to us. Sometimes, people respond first and easiest to fear and pain than to love. And we deal the former out far easier than the latter. I ask "why?!" Sin, somehow, but that's all I've got.
That is partly why Jesus acted the way He did, I think. I can only speculate, but if love is truly in our hearts, if God's glorification and worship is our true goal, love is our response, and thus, because of love, we would immediately forgive a transgression and show that your love for God, your love for everything in His creation, outweighs our wish for personal satisfaction.
As John 1:11 so perfectly illustrates He [Christ] came unto his own, and his own received him not. It’s important to realize this, because as we know, God is not fooled and so after Israel has rejected him he knew he needed to go to the cross to die, accomplishing so much more then even the devil and his angels thought possible. 1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. The evil done here to Christ was not restrained because Christ was illustrating how he could beat the devil at his own game. 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
I think the life of Christ only shows a glimpse and can not be a complete model for your life... the whole Bible is the Lord isn’t it? John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. The purpose of Christ’s life was focused on Israel accepting Him as King... and he even in their error He was triumphant. I believe you can respond to violence with violence, and I think the Bible illustrates this throughout the Old Testament, although you won’t find it in the life of Christ - Christ does restrain evil, casting out devils and such, but what if He had been accepted as King?... Wouldn’t he have raised an army to defend Israel? God commanded the army of Israel throughout the Old Testament to go to war; God commanded / helped David kill Goliath... there is probably a hundred examples of God making war or defending with force. The apostle Paul, didn’t fight back after he was converted, but he was often instructed to flee and run away... of course that doesn’t sound as good on the podium... when things get rough run away! Honestly I’ve heard the Christ never fought back speeches and as amazing and telling of his sheer patience and power as they are, I find them often taken out of context – and raised up in a way that is insane and simply not practical. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:... mentioned among these are the unpleasant illustrations: kill, gather stones, refrain from embracing, time to hate, a time of war. Restraining evil has always been a job for the followers of God, clearly we are not to revenge a wrong out of hate, or judge someone as if we were any better then us, I have to agree with th jd in whether “...retaliation shows love...” In Wild at Heart is the boy instructed to fight back, to protect family or friends, to protect others that can not defend themselves, to restrain evil and maintain order and law, to break the bully and humble him for Christ? Although I can’t find the verse now, God reads your heart, and thus fortify your heart with doctrine, not only from Christ’s life here on earth but from the entire bible so that when you are thrown in a situation you can make the most biblically informed decision possible. 1 Co 8 talks about the weaker believe not eating meat that has been offered to idols, I tend to apply such a situation to a Christian who decides not to defend himself. He will turn the other cheek, and does nothing wrong, but could have (if he had known) made a stand using Biblical principle. Of course there are times when, I can think of no better response then to bite my tongue, or turn my cheek.... I guess I’m just debating the “never” mentality.
Jesus didn't retaliate? Don't tell me you've never read the "woes to the pharisees" chapter in Matthew... or the time when Jesus made a "scourge of small cords" to cast out those who turned His house into a "house of merchanside" (John 2:13-16)?
And I don't want to hear any of the "well, we're just not supposed to act that way" because you see God acting that way, so there must be something about "retaliating" in this instance that isn't sinful!
But here, the issue is not retaliation--it is standing up for yourself and asserting your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In Ireland, there was a famous band of warriors known as the Fianna; their purpose was to protect Ireland's borders from invasion, but they didn't pursue anyone once the invaders left (Iron John, 147).
When you stand up for yourself--in this case, in a physical sense--you don't actively pursue the bully once he leaves you alone; the purpose is to defend yourself from physical abuse. If someone was constantly putting you down verbally at work, you would handle the situation in a different matter (because it's verbal instead of physical), but still you would assert your right to be treated in a respectful manner.
In a school-yard case such as this, Blaine is not being persecuted for his faith (which would absolutely require submission, Matthew 5:10,12). Persecution for one's faith is a wholly spiritual issue--it is a completely spiritual battle.
However, being pushed down by "some first-grade poser" on the playground is both spiritual and physical. In this situation, the bully doesn't leave you alone unless you teach him that you don't go down without a fight. Once he realizes that you have strength, he'll leave you alone because you don't make him look tough--your strength exposes his weakness.
I don't go around looking for fights, but if I was in one, my actions would depend on the circumstances:
(1) someone trying to hurt me or those I care about for a reason other than my spiritual beliefs: I allow self-preservation to kick in, and I'm gonna do my best to neutralize the other guy because I don't know what he's capable of or how far he's willing to take it; or
(2) persecution: respond just like Jesus and Daniel--whose life was also sought for his faith--and submit to it.
Hey Guys...
I spent over an hour yesterday responding in detail in the hopes of further good conversation, and lost it! So today, I thought I would just attach on here the thoughts of Ron Sider (president...or former prez of the National Association of Evangelicals). Maybe it will generate a discussion if you're still interested.
Ron addresses several points of your individual thoughts: most notably the one in the middle of Jason's suggestion, and that is this: that there is a clean distinction between "spiritual" persecution and simple "physical" confrontation. Often in practical daily life, it's terribly hard to separate the two, and maybe we shouldn't. Here in the West we like to fragment and compartmentalize our lives as if we can be different persons in different spheres, but Jesus would've said that was ludicrous. God takes us where we're at in our fragmented selves, and, with our submission, puts us back together again to see our life as a unitary whole. I would also caution against quoting our "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights equal to or subordinating Jesus' call to love radically and sacrificially, but I would agree, Jason, in rejecting the comment "Jesus never Retaliated." The question then becomes; in what way did Jesus retaliate, because that makes all the difference in the world.
Here's Ron:
"But Jesus' approach to peacemaking was not to lapse into passive nonresistance; it was not to withdraw to isolated solitude; it was not to teach one ethic for the private sphere and another for public life. Jesus modeled an activist challenge to the status quo, summoning the entire Jewish people to accept his nonviolent messianic strategy instead of the Zealot's militaristic methods.
Jesus' approach was not one of passive nonresistance. If Jesus' call not to resist one who is evil in Matthew 5:39 was a summons to pure nonresistance and the rejection of all forms of pressure and coercion, then Jesus regularly contradicted his own teaching. He unleashed a blistering attack on the Pharisees, denouncing them as blind guides, fools, hypocrites, and snakes -- surely psychological coercion of a vigorous type as is even the most loving church discipline which Jesus prescribed (Matthew 18:15ff).
Nor was Jesus nonresistant when he cleansed the temple! He engaged in aggressive resistance against evil when he marched into the temple, drove the animals out with a whip, dumped the money tables upside down, and denounced the money changers as robbers. If Matthew 5:39 means that all forms of resistance to evil are forbidden, then Jesus disobeyed his own command. Jesus certainly did not kill the money changers. Indeed, I doubt that he even used his whip on them. But he certainly resisted their evil in a dramatic act of civil disobedience.
Or consider Jesus' response when a soldier unjustly struck him on the cheek at his trial (John 18:19-24). Instead of turning the other cheek and meekly submitting to this injustice, he protested! "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" Apparently Jesus thought that protesting police brutality or engaging in civil disobedience in a nonviolent fashion was entirely consistent with his command not to resist the one who is evil.
Jesus would never have ended up on the cross if he had exemplified the isolationist pacifism of withdrawal. Nor would he have offended anyone if he had simply conformed to current values as we are often tempted to do when we abandon the pattern of isolation. Rejecting both isolation and accommodation, Jesus lived at the heart of his society challenging the status quo at every point where it was wrong.
Jesus upset men happy with the easy divorce laws that permitted them to dismiss their wives on almost any pretext. He defied the social patterns of his day that treated women as inferiors. Breaking social custom, he appeared publicly with women, taught them theology, and honored them with his first resurrection appearance.
Jesus angered political rulers, smugly satisfied with domination of their subjects with his call to servant leadership.
And he terrified the economic establishment, summoning materialists like the rich young ruler to give away their wealth, denouncing those who oppressed widows, and calling the rich to loan to the poor even if they had no hope of repayment (Luke 6:30ff). Indeed, he considered concern for the poor so important that he warned that those who do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked will go to hell.
Jesus disturbed the status quo -- but not for mere love of change. It was his commitment to shalom, to the right relationships promised in messianic prophecy, that make him a disturber of an unjust peace. He brought right relationships between men and women, between rich and poor by his radical challenge to the status quo.
Repeatedly in our history, the terror of persecution and the temptation of security have lured us to retreat to the safety of isolated solitude where our radical ideas threaten no one. But that was not Jesus' way. He challenged his society so vigorously and so forcefully that the authorities had only two choices. They had to accept his call to repentance and change or they had to get rid of him. Do we have the courage to follow in his steps?
Jesus approach was activist and vigorous, but it was not violent. A costly self-giving love, even for enemies, was central to his message. He called his followers to abandon retaliation, even the accepted "eye for an eye" of the Mosaic legal system. He said that his followers would persist in costly love even for enemies, even if those enemies never reciprocated.
It is hardly surprising that Christians have been tempted to weaken Jesus' call to costly self-sacrifice -- whether by postponing its application to the millennium, labeling it an impossible ideal, or restricting its relevance to some personal private sphere. The last is perhaps the most widespread and the most tempting. Did Jesus merely mean that although the individual Christian in his personal role should respond nonviolently to enemies, that same person as public official may kill them?
Ron addresses specifically the public/private distinction, but the point applies for the physical/spiritual or whatever other distinctions we may make...
Post a Comment
<< Home