I get it. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, therefore there are times when violence is appropriate behaviour.
There are times when physical force for self defence is not a sin. Jesus never destroyed this law. It is not interpretation, it is his unambiguous words.
I don't think that either of these examples negate the very plain repeated unambiguous teachings of the rest of the New Testament.
Your assumption is that your understanding of Jesus teachings are unambiguous. But in turn the other cheek passage you have ignored the context. Jesus is elaborating on the law in Exodus 21 which is talking about retribution, not an act using force in self defence. He is promoting attempting reconciliation. This is not a general speech against using force in self-defence or in compassion for someone else, these were already establish as truths in God's law and had no need to be reinterpreted by Jesus becuase they were already just actions. It is a specific context (exodus 21) that would have been recognized by those who heard it. This was the basis of the whole semon on the mount. Enlightening where God stands within the rules laid out in Torah. That is why he said do not think that I have come to abolish the law but to fufill it.
I asked for specific teaching.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luk 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
I guess I just have to reapeat myself. You argument is is that this is a metaphor right? So when there is something specific, you choose a metaphor.
The actual statements made by Jesus are not restricted by the context. The statements themselves are rather broad sweeping statements. He does not say turn to him the other cheek also if your heart is full of anger and you are prone to sin.
It is a literal quotation of a short section Exodus 21, a technique amongst Pharasee's and other contemporary teacher's of Jesus's time to infer a direct context. If he was being sweeping, he would have said "Don't be violent".
So if the government tells you do do something contrary to what Jesus plainly teaches you to do, then it is OK. Thanks, I got it.
No, we are to follow just laws based on the principles that Jesus upheld, the contextual time period likely would have reflected that. Remember he didn't come to destroy the law [of Moses] according to his words.
If it is not a crime, then it is not a sin??
No. I don't believe I said that. But this particular law, that there should be clemancy for someone using force in self-defence.
As far as I can read, the plain repeated unambiguous teaching of the New Testament is that interpersonal violence is wrong. You have claimed that this is not so but you have failed to show me specifically which teachings my understanding of the NT contravenes.
I would agree that our differences has to do with your understanding of the NT. Perhaps it also has the fact to do that our language associates all acts of physical force with violence. But there seems to be a different colloquial meaning of Greek Equivalents.
John the Baptist addressed some soldiers like this in Luke:
Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse [any] falsely; and be content with your wages.
Here John tells them first to do violence to no man, and then to be content with their wages. So obviously they weren't meant to quit their jobs. So violence here seems to mean something other than peacekeeping. So in this NT Greek sense I would agree with you, but your 20th century assumptions (all physcial force in self-defence or compassion is violence) don't seem to match. I would not fault any one for wanting to be a pacifist. Jesus does promote it and so do I. In the same token I am sure Jesus wouldn't rebuke someone for using force in self defence or out of compassion.
Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
Mar 11:16 And would not suffer that any man should carry [any] vessel through the temple.
Did he cast them out with words alone? Maybe.
