Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

What Would Jesus Really Do? Fight Evil? Or Turn the Other Cheek?

What do you think Jesus would do in Syria or Jerusalem today?

by
Rhonda Robinson

Bio

September 15, 2013 - 3:00 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Page143clip

Evil is an enemy that must be confronted and fought. Jesus never asked us to turn the other cheek when faced with the likes of evil. Wickedness, and wicked men, we are told to stay far from. They will see destruction. Wickedness produces evil. Jews and Christians alike are called to protect innocence against injustice and the wicked.

Boteach’s description of a messiah is someone that will rescue another from oppression and end war by fighting for peace.

Living as a messiah means you’ve been called upon. Jesus certainly heard that call, and all of us should live by his example– confronting the world as though God has chosen us as His champion, to redeem mankind from evil. If we all lived in this spirit, it would be a far better world.

This is a Jewish messiah. As a Christian, I see Jesus as the messiah and savior. I can’t emulate Christ by feeding the multitudes with a few loaves of bread. Nor can I make the blind see. I can’t follow him with my own death on a cross.

So how can I follow him? Love God, love people — resist and fight real evil. In this, both Christians and Jews alike can follow Jesus.

What do you think Jesus would do in  Syria or Jerusalem  today? 

************

Photo credit Shutterstock,  jerryjoz

kosherjesusIt’s not too late to join the conversation. Buy Kosher Jesus here.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Rhonda Robinson writes on the social, political and parenting issues currently shaping the American family. She lives with her husband and teenage daughter in Middle Tennessee. www.amotherslife.me Follow on twitter @amotherslife

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I think it's clear that the power players are all bad guys.

The only good guys are very much in the minority, and are being persecuted by both sides.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
[Jesus] went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’ “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”

The whole earth is God vineyard and we are all to work on it and enjoy it in peace but through history there has been a group of men bent on conquering the earth for themselves and enslave all the inhabitants. The American Revolution from the start put our side of the vineyard "under God". That is exceptional, unique in all modern history. Now the usurpers have invaded even this nation and they are close to controlling the whole world through deception and murder. They will not succeed. No one has ever succeeded against the Kingdom of God. I do not know how it will happen but I know that the ire of God will consume the usurpers and history will retake its course once again. Jesus--the right heir to the vineyard--will come and set things straight. We have to resist evil until He comes in glory and rescues us.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (44)
All Comments   (44)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Alright, folks, listen up! The real question is, "What is our Lord, Jesus Christ, doing about all this?" And the truth is, we don't know. Contrary to the writer's notion, we are commanded to love everyone with a proactive, selfsacrificial love. "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.", Mt.5.44. We can't know what, behind the scenes, He may be engineering. But we do know that His concern is with the salvation of mankind. Even with those who prefer such as Barabbas, Pilate, Judas to Him. He used many figures of speech and those who despise the morality He commands us choose to pretend literal understandings so as to make His sayings seem irrational, even silly. Our Lord Jesus claimed to be Divine, and He is! If all men lived by the NT there would be no war, crime or poverty.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here is what Jesus thought about looking at someone with lust in one's heart.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery already with her in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole
body should be cast into hell (Matthew 5:27-29

His words remind one of the Muslim fathers who kill their daughters for staring at a boy.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
George, the Lord here spoke figuratively; not literally. He warned that lust can lead to fornication and fornication separates us from God, hence from salvation, hence to perdition. loving us enough to die on the cross for us, He wants us to behave properly so that we can be saved. His warning is tantamount to urging us not to walk too closely to the edge of a cliff lest we fall. The principle here is that the body follows the mind. When tempted, refocus your mind on something wholesome and you will not lead yourself into evil and self destruction. You may hate Him because you don't want to obey His commands and perhaps that is why why you wrote as you did. But He is your only hope, as no one comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ. No one, Jn.14.6.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
If I understand the question correctly "what would Jesus do", not what will Jesus do when he returns. This question has an answer as all Christians live in Christ and He in them. So as a Christian "I pray" that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, "Luke 22:41-42" For the nonbeliever, what does God's will look like? We are told to come out of the world and not to love anything in it as this is what leads to men becoming evil "1 John 2:15-17"; Ephesians 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light; 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Only God Himself and Abraham (Isaiah 51:1) are compared to a rock in the Old Testament."

Believing this would be a serious mistake. Begin reading in Ezekiel 28:12 and you will see where the "false rock" Tyrus is identified and then you will understand why Moses said in Deuteronomy 32:31"their rock is not as our ROCK".
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi he put this question to his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' 'But you,' he said, 'who do you say I am?' Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter *[Aramaic: Kepha] and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to say to anyone that he was the Christ. (16, 13-20)

There are many interesting counterpoints that we can examine. One of them is not readily apparent to those not familiar with the Aramaic language used by Jesus and his disciples. Please pay attention to the name that Jesus gives to Simon Peter: Kepha (meaning a rock, large stone, or a rocky elevation, or promontory). Besides being a very original name, Kepha is also very suggestive. Only God Himself and Abraham (Isaiah 51:1) are compared to a rock in the Old Testament. Moreover, the name chosen for Peter by Jesus seems to contrast with the name of Kaiaphas, the High Priest of that year (John 11, 51).

Kaiaphas was not a High Priest selected according to the Levitical tradition. He had been appointed by the Romans to replace the real High Priest (his father-in-law Annas). This political appointment of the High Priest was forced upon the Jews by the Romans. The Romans and the Hasmonean kings did not like a permanent High Priest appointed for life (it could work against their political interests). The Romans picked a male from the family of Annas to serve as High Priest for a year at a time. At the time of Jesus' death it was Kaiaphas' turn to serve as High Priest.

While the Romans in control of Jerusalem had appointed Kaiaphas as High Priest, Jesus in Caesarea Philippi appoints Kepha as High Priest of the nascent Church.

Is this a coincidence that Jesus chose to invest Peter with the High Piesthood in the area named after the Roman Caesars?

Later the Romans destroy the Temple of Jerusalem, but the Church that Christ sends into the world remains in Rome while the Roman Empire of Caesar disappears from history. The contrast is very obvious.

We can also add that the names are symmetrically opposed: Kepha means a rock or rocky promontory. Kaiaphas means a valley, dell or a depression of the ground. The two names sound very similar to each other yet have perfectly opposite meanings. The imagery seems to intimate that the Church lead by Kepha will rise and be firmly established in contrast with that of Kaiaphas that will lessened in importance (compare to the replacement of the unfaithful steward in Isaiah 22, 15-25).

The new priesthood will take the good news of the kingdom to the nations of the world and most significantly it will preside over that expansion from the very city of Caesar: Rome.

Quoted from: http://www.casorosendi.com/articles/36-english/192-signs-of-the-church-in-matthew-1613-20
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
The silly RCC deception that the gospel according to Matthew was originally written in aramaic is, like most RCC claims, an assertion without any proof whatsoever. As far as the available evidence shows, koine greek was the language matthew used, and the Lord's use of "petros", a small stone, for Peter, and "petra", a large rock, for Himself, the rock on which He would build His one and only church,makes it clear that He built nothing on Peter.At ICor.10.4 the Lord is referred to as Petra, confirming this perspective. "You are a small stone", He said to Peter, "and on this large rock I will build my church." Rabid assertion, deception and malice characterize the intellectually dishonest , despotic claims of Apostle Paul's man of Sin. Reading the personal histories of many of the Popes of Rome is like browsing the biographies of such as Nero, Mohammed, Stalin, Hitler and like monsters; surely not chosen by God as His Vicar on earth.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Turn the other cheek..." regarding high Christian gentility is predominantly misunderstood (much as is "Thou shalt not kill.." when the accurate translation is "Thou shalt do no murder..."). Closer scrutiny reveals that The Lord was addressing how to respond to contempt, since the initial assault was a smite (or slap) to the right cheek, which was comprehended at that time and in that culture and those mores, to be a "smite" (more accurately a "slap") swept across one's face with the assailant's right (or "fighting" or "combat" hand). Hence the backhanded slap, a supreme gesture of contempt among men of the era and the place. No honorable man at the time would even consider such a contemptible gesture with its frequent response, insulted rage unto greater violence. God seems to be instructing His Children that the ideal, if not perfect, response to a contemptible act by a contemptible man is to not just ignore it, but bravely, calmly, and wisely challenge the assailant to repeat his contemptible (and, I must say, sissified) behavior for all to see and further confirm that assailant's effeteness.

29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
"What do you think Jesus would do in Syria or Jerusalem today?"

HE would end all fighting by ruling with a rod of iron and every knee would bow, thus fulfilling Zechariah 9:10, Psalms 2:9 and Isaiah 45:23. If the Rabbi would spend more time reading from the Tanakh instead of the Talmud he might know this.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think he would continue his ministry in Israel.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In Matthew “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword…” Jesus was calling his men to arms. "

Um, no. The problem, of course, is that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is neither a Christian nor is he familiar with the history and teachings of Christianity.

The Jews of Jesus' time were expecting a worldly Messiah that would delivery Israel and the Jews from the Roman empire and restore the independent Kingdom of Israel. This is why the populace greeted Jesus on Palm Sunday with Hosannas and a parade, expecting Him to show Himself as a temporal king. It's also the excuse that the Sanhedrin used to have the Romans crucify him, despite Pontius Pilate's better judgement: Pilate was already 2 strikes down against the emperor, due to previous events, and he didn't dare face the possibility of another Jewish revolt on his watch.

But Jesus said, many times, that "My kingdom is not of this world." The Jews missed the boat: they assumed that the prophesied Messiah would be another military ruler sent only for their own people; they misinterpreted the prophecies in Issiah and elsewhere that said that through the Messiah God would save not only Israel but the gentiles - the rest of the world - as well. Jesus didn't hide this, He knew perfectly well what was about to happen and predicted it. And went willingly.

The problem with asking "what would Jesus do" is that we cannot do what He would do. We cannot control the weather, heal the sick with a touch, or raise the dead with a word. We can only act as He commands us to act, in the vocations in which God places us, with the resources that we have. In the case of the Middle East, we as individuals must work for peace and healing, individual on individual, while our leaders keep our safety and security as their primary focus.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh, when Jesus said "not peace but a sword" He meant that his Words, and following him, would inevitably lead to strife. We as Christians cannot compromise the message, or what God we follow. The Muslims will hate us because we are not Muslim, and the Christians in Syria and Egypt certainly are finding out where the Muslim swords are. The secularists will hate us and seek to hurt us because we do not follow their god Eros (the god of unbridled sexuality). Christianity may even break up families, when a parent does not accept the Christian faith of a child and disowns her. Christians are not called to pick up the sword, except in defense of family and community; we are most certainly not called to attack people of other faiths. We are, however, warned that the swords are coming for us.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Oh, when Jesus said "not peace but a sword" He meant that his Words, and following him, would inevitably lead to strife."

Is that kind of like "jihad" is simply a spiritual struggle?
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
You have to read the context:
..............
whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one....
They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
.................

Obviously, the disciples showed Jesus two written down words, and that was enough.

You're really bad at scripture reading, you know. You'll never get anywhere learning about Jesus by reading what he actually said. You need true believers to interpret it for you.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I know from Luther onwards everyone is a Theologian and so there is "free interpretation" but Scripture is a serious matter. I invite you to read a good book of hermeneutics, educate yourself on the matters you are interested in debunking AND THEN do the debunking. Otherwise your arguments are wasted. Religion is part of the life of mankind from the beginning and it has begotten many good things you enjoy now: philosophy (you need to study that too,) universities, many principles of science. People obviously more intelligent than you are, like Newton, Georges LeMaitre, Einstein were all believers. Meditate about it and don't make a fool of yourself just throwing the same old canards. We Jews and Christians have been around for 40 centuries: you'll need more than a cheap half-a$$ed argument to tear down that house. Stop reading Hawkings, Dennett, Peter Hitchens & co. and start reading hard philosophy, thinking strategies, physics, mathematics. Any of them can help you advance your argument if you are right. Get serious because if you are wrong, man... what a pity.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Reference, please, as to where He made the exception to family and community, or country, thanks
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9-21
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sorry, the book of armaments thing was just snark. Here's the actual scripture with the exception for defending families:

........... Luke 14:26 ...........
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
the original meaning in that case is "love less" and not the modern "hate"
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know what Jesus would do, but I believe he would have a hard time sorting which side was absent of evil. What would Jesus do if he had believed that a large percentage of the people wanting to overthrow Rome had essentially the same character and intent as the Romans? And what if it was most probable that the most violent, intolerant faction would be the inevitable successors to Roman rule?
Looking back at our civil war, whether you believe or not that the real reason for fighting was slavery or states rights, we can all look back and agree on the fact that one side supported slavery and one did not; and that in itself makes a clear moral distinction between sides. Roman oppression and persecution were equally distinct from the alternatives - Christians weren't seeking to rule or assume power, they just wanted to be left alone. I believe Jesus would have a harder time finding a moral justification to help the rebels than he did to oppose Rome; if I had to guess I would guess he would urge those who could to help the innocent - get out of Syria, take refuge, or whatever they could, and leave the fight for control to Al Qaeda and Assad.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Jesus simply didn't care about overthrowing Rome, it wasn't on His agenda. Rome was a tool that He used to impose peace and a common language on a large enough percentage of the world so that His Gospel and the new Church could safely establish itself. Remember, Jesus doesn't care about morality; no-one is moral enough.

As for the U.S. Civil War, as the play "1776" points out, secession and slavery were inextricably intertwined. Study the history of the time, I recommend "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin as an excellent review of the complexity of the subject.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I disagree with your statement "esus simply didn't care about overthrowing Rome". He did. In Matthew 16:13-20 Jesus gets the 12 together and reveals to them as the Messiah. He names a "steward" using the royal formula of the Kings of Israel. The place he chooses is Roman, he tells the 12 they are going to defeat the Roman gods. In time Rome fell, the Church took the Imperial Purple, the City of the Caesars, the "mount of the prophecies" (Mons Vaticanus) all for herself. Finally in the style of ancient conquerors, Christ cut the Emperor's tongue--in a symbolic way of course: Latin survives only in the Church as an official language. Christ conquered Rome utterly destroying all of it forever as he promised in the Apocalypse. He did not do it the way others expected it but he did. Eventually He will conquer the whole world throwing the "Beast" (the Liberal Rebellion) and the "false prophet" (Islam) into the lake of fire of eternal destruction where the first beast (Rome) was already thrown. You will see it with your own eyes.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All