Memo to John Edwards: Jesus Was Not a Leftist

Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards told an interviewer from the religious website beliefnet.com that Jesus "would be disappointed" at how little Americans help the destitute who live among them. Jesus, Mr. Edwards said, "would be appalled" at our selfishness.

In the view of John Edwards and other Christians on the Left, Jesus would raise taxes, promote single-payer, i.e., socialized, medicine, be pro-choice and advocate same-sex marriage. But most of all, Jesus would be anti-war, opposed to the military and essentially be a pacifist.

This is based largely on one of His most famous statements: "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

The flaw in interpreting such statements as policy statements on how a nation should behave is that Jesus was speaking about the life of the individual -- the micro -- not about nations and the macro.

This confusion of micro and macro morality not only afflicts the Left, it also afflicts the Right. One example is when religious conservatives equate public and private cursing. While ideally one should refrain from using expletives in private as well as in public, there is no moral comparison between using such words in private conversations and using them in public. One trusts that if a religious conservative overheard a teacher using an expletive in a quiet conversation with one other person, he would not compare such speech to the teacher's using that expletive while teaching a class. The first may be a personal sin, but the second is destructive of society.

Nevertheless it is the Left that is most oblivious to the distinction between the micro and the macro. Its understanding of Jesus is a good example. The Left would have us as a nation put this admonition of Jesus into practice: "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

But Jesus was clearly referring to interpersonal relations. It is critically important when trying to understand any portion of the Bible or any other text to read a passage within the context of the surrounding material. As biblical commentaries often put it, "Context is king."

Noting what precedes and what follows this verse shows that it deals with attitudes and behaviors of individuals in such matters as anger against another individual in one's personal life, adultery, divorce, oath-taking, giving to the poor, prayer, fasting, prioritizing, worrying, etc. Jesus was talking about interpersonal relations and noted that in our relations with people in our lives, it is not generally a good idea to hit back.

Now imagine applying this to nations: Should we have said to the Japanese after they attacked Pearl Harbor, "Now that you have attacked us in the West, please also bomb our cities in the East"?

The idea that a country should offer its other cheek to an aggressor is simply immoral, not to mention suicidal. Such thinking renders Jesus and the Christian Bible foolish.

It also shows how hypocritical are the Left's attacks on religious conservatives for taking the Bible literally. It is the Left that engages in a far more dangerous literalism when it applies Jesus' words to national policy. Those on the religious Right who believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days are engaged in, I believe, a completely unnecessary literalism. But it is hardly dangerous. The Left's biblical literalism, however, applying "turn the other cheek" to millions of its own citizens, is fatally dangerous.

Besides literalism, another point of hypocrisy: The Left attacks the religious Right for threatening to replace our democracy with a theocracy that will impose fundamentalist Christianity on the nation. Yet the people who loathe conservatives for using Scripture have no difficulty with those who cite Jesus' words when arguing their positions -- even when citing them incorrectly.

Jesus was no leftist. He was, among other things, a religious Jew who knew and believed his Hebrew Bible, which contains verses such as this one from Psalms: "Those of you who love God must hate evil." That, not offering another city for terrorists to bomb, is likely what Jesus believed.

Some Jewish people are better at understanding Jesus than some Christians, and I don't just mean liberal Christians (assuming there is such a thing). Some Christians take good NT theology and allow it to become the enemy of other Scripture revealed truths, especially OT truths. In other words they distort it. Test your doctrine: Does it serve sin or righteousness? Does it elevate God's holiness or does it devalue and even deny it? No right doctrine should contradict the very nature of God. His nature will never change. God's amazing grace and gift of His Son should NEVER be used to excuse sin or claim that God doesn't care about those things any longer. God is still just. He still hates evil.

For example: Romans 6: 1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? ....

That is an example of some who would use right doctrine to serve sin. Some use the doctrine of human depravity in service to sin. Liberals simply deny the truth of it, but so-called conservatives can twist it the other way in service to sin. Just because we all have a sin nature (or "no one is perfect") does not give ANYONE an excuse for the wrong things they do. Nor does it make all things equal. It simply means we ALL need a Savior to atone for our sins and free us from our guilt before a holy God and our slavery to sin.

Etc...

"IIRC, Jewish custom at the time was that only the right cheek could be struck. By turning the other (left or technically non-strikable) cheek, Jesus was, essentially, advocating a non-aggressive defensive action. Can any FReepers with more knowledge on this confirm or deny what I stated?" ~ batter

FYI:

Matthew 5:39-41 http://www.tektonics.org/TK-MTT.html

Articles

Does this passage teach us to be doormats? http://www.tektonics.org/qt/smithg01.html#lk627

Is Jesus contradicting the OT on revenge? http://www.tektonics.org/qt/revenge.html

So do we pay double on lawsuits? http://www.tektonics.org/af/barkquiz.html#dub

Brains and Eggs
Or, A Quick Look at Some Insults to Our Intelligence
James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/smithg01.html

[HUGE snip]

....We'll comment on only one claim in particular, concerning Luke 6:27-8 and Matthew 5:39-41 --

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Smith interprets these commands as directives to tolerate injustice and be a doormat, and says "such precepts require the obliteration of one's capacity to distinguish the good from the evil." [323]

Taken in their social context, these commands require no such things. "Resist not evil" is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them.

Three examples for the teaching follow: Turn the other cheek; if someone sues you for your cloak, also give them your tunic; if you are forced to go one mile, go two. All three of these things refer to what amount to inconvenient, but nevertheless perfectly legal, impositions on the person.

The "slap on the cheek" is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up.

The cloak/tunic bit must be recognized in terms of the ancient Jewish customary process of making good pledge on one's debts by handing over a valuable item as collateral; for most people in this time, items of clothing were the only thing suitable. In essence, the teaching is to provide surety of repayment of a justly-decided debt, even to those who are enemies.

Finally, the double-mileage command refers in context to the legal right a Roman soldier had to make any person carry their belongings for up to one mile. As you might imagine, this was not a popular requirement in the neighborhood of Palestine, but it was the law, and the teaching again is in essence, do it, and do it without complaint, even though the Roman is your enemy. And if you need to know why, consider that your resultant testimony as a member of God's kingdom (for the Sermon on the Mount is composed of instructions for just that set) is far, far more important than a few mild inconveniences or insults to your person...not that one like Smith would agree, having no recognition of the kingdom in the first place. Nevertheless, Smith's analysis is completely oblivious to both the context and the intent of the teaching.

Our conclusion: What I have seen of Smith that touches upon my areas of interest reveals yet another skeptic who devotes himself to the shabbiest research; what else I have seen reveals a very poor thinker. Perhaps the rest of his material is different, but I wouldn't bank on it.

[huge snip]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.