“Do not resist an evildoer,” Jesus said. And “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also”(Mt 5:39). So too, he commanded us to “[l]ove your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Lk 6:27-28). Never does Jesus or any New Testament author qualify this teaching or provide any exceptions to it. To the contrary, Paul reiterates it (Rom. 12:17-21). And remember, to speak of “enemies” to Jews in first century Palestine was to speak first and foremost about the oppressive Romans. These are the enemies we’re to “not resist” and to love, serve and bless.

Jesus’ teaching is perfectly straight-forward, yet this very straightforwardness presents us with a dilemma.

Greg gives enough right there to explain the dilemma without reinterpreting the whole OT, thereby implying everyone has been clueless for 2000 years. Jesus began his Matthew discourse by saying he had not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. He explains this by saying not ONE jot or tittle would pass from the law OR prophets until the heaven and earth pass away and all be fulfilled. As some post-millenialists have admitted, this must at least bring things to 70 A.D. And that's with a very metaphorical view of the NT that isn't even necessary.

But what is Paul doing in Rom 12? He's showing two things that corroborate Jesus and contradict Greg. First, Paul reaffirms Jesus' implication that the OT was correct to say that "VENGEANCE IS MINE, SAITH THE LORD." I.e., vengeance (i.e., judgment) is, consistently with human intuition, an element of justice, which is an element of benevolence/rationality. Second, Paul quotes out of the Proverbs to show that the prophets (as well as the law if one looks closely enough) always acknowledged a place for suffering evil personally to minimize over-all suffering. That's what love does. But God is an avenger. And Rom. 13 says God's institution of government is just one such implementation of His vengeance.

Greg, there is no dilemma. You're reading Mt 5:39 out of context. The role of force is indeed limited for government (e.g., just war criteria) and even more so for individuals. The fact that the proper adjudication of when to use force is hard doesn't mean it is not part and parcel of wise living.

Thanks for the last link. It works for me. I was able to get through the first lecturer so far. I liked what he said about the improbability of a purely pacifist Christian community prior to Constantine. I've always found such inferences to monolithic views for whole societies or regions highly suspect. It contradicts what recent research has well-established about the diversity of human cognitive and social styles. There is no reason to assume that diversity originated recently.

It seems to me that the only way post-millenialism could be consistent with open theism is if the attained latter state is not left to human volition. Otherwise, it could not be foreknown, could it? The only other alternative I can see is to posit that human societal improvement is a natural tendency. But I see no historical evidence of that. History seems perfectly consistent with the view that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, just as scripture indicates.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/3/2012 8:40:43 PM (GMT-5)