How does one differentiate between parts of the bible that are meant to be literal vs metaphorical?

It could be that “ turn the other cheek “ was a reference to “ eye for an eye “ and that is not about self defense. Eye for an eye was about legal revenge. If someone harmed you, you went before the priests and they would bring up the accused and if found guilty they would be handed down the same harm as a sentence. So if a man attacked you and blinded one eye , then you took them before the community and if found guilty they would be struck and lose an eye. It’s all about revenge. It’s not about self defense. Jesus never says that we should do nothing and allow others to harm us. Jesus never says, if someone is being raped just tell them to accept it, don’t fight back, and ask them what position is best for them while bystanders just scream stop and pray. That just simply is not there. Jesus was not joking when he said “ buy some swords and that is enough”. Jesus was not telling them to become a paramilitary organization either. He was not telling them to get revenge on those that hurt them. But he was making it clear self defense is perfectly fine. Nothing in the entire Bible says self defense is evil.

But it’s beneficial for someone to understand the differences between self defense and revenge. It’s beneficial to understand what did “ eye for an eye “ actually mean in the Tanakh in order to understand the change Jesus was making.

Well, Jesus did say to not resist an evil doer. He could have said…do not avenge or do not seek revenge, as you’re saying. But the text in our Bible literally says to not resist and to turn the other cheek if you were slapped. I grew up in a religious home, and interpreted this literally, which only allowed bullies to take advantage of me. Perhaps my literal interpretation was incorrect, but that only means Jesus didn’t know how to speak more clearly.

If it was okay to fight back, why didn’t Jesus just say so? Why not tell people it’s their duty to defend their homes, their loved ones from evildoers?

Well what makes you think turn the other cheek means if someone hits you to turn your cheek do they can hit the other? What makes it mean that and not turn away from them and don’t pursue it?

Leviticus 24:17-23

Leviticus 24:17-23
New American Standard Bible
An Eye for an Eye
17 ‘Now (A)if someone [a]takes any human life, he must be put to death. 18 But (B)the one who [b]takes the life of an animal shall make restitution, life for life. 19 If someone injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so shall it be done to him: 20 (C)fracture for fracture, (D)eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a person, so shall it be [c]inflicted on him. 21 So the one who [d]kills an animal shall make restitution, but (E)the one who [e]kills a person shall be put to death. 22 There shall be only (F)one [f]standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God.’” 23 Then Moses spoke to the sons of Israel, and they brought the one who had cursed outside the camp, and stoned him with stones. So the sons of Israel did just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Deuteronomy 19:14-21
New American Standard Bible
Laws of Landmark and Testimony

14 “You shall not displace your neighbor’s boundary marker, which the ancestors have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to [a]possess.

15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a person regarding any wrongdoing or any sin [b]that he commits; on the [c]testimony of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16 If a malicious witness rises up against a person to testify against him of wrongdoing, 17 then both people who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has testified against his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had planned to do to his brother. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you. 20 And the rest of the people will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. 21 So [d]you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.

These verses show that eye for an eye was part of their judicial system. It’s a snapshot of some of their legal approaches to wrong doing. It’s all about a victim getting revenge through their court system. What Jesus was talking about was a direct reference back to how should a Christian seek justice against someone who done them wrong. Jesus response was to turn away. Turn your other cheek. Don’t seek out revenge but forgive them. Don’t pay back suffering with suffering. None of it was about self defense. Jesus was very clear. The misunderstanding does not come from what Jesus said, but from those who don’t understand what was being said because they don’t understand what he’s actually quoting. Jesus was talking to be about green up understanding the Torah. Jesus was talking to Jews. Not modern western people. It was a sort of coined phrase understood by everyone.

It’s like if we said “ you’ve heard if you are feeling froggy then leap but I say keep your feet on the ground”. Assuming you understand that phrase you know leaping in that sense means taking the first action. It’s someone telling you if you want to fight then make the first move. By saying keep your feet on the ground I’m implying don’t move to attack them. It does not actually mean freeze up and do nothing. It’s not satin on don’t leave the drama and walk away…. It’s clear to us becsuse we understand it. But someone 300 years from now may not have any idea what that was supposed to mean and interpret it as don’t move and allow someone to harm you and they would be wrong.

So none of the Jewish people would have heard what Jesus said and confused it for self defense. There was no need to mention self defense. It’s unrelated and there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of people defending their nations, family and ect… so it’s not confusing .

So you don’t understand what Sola Scriptura is all about

1 Like

Retaliation is not self defense.

Retaliation is if I was walking home and someone came up to me with a bat and struck me and I was knocked down and they then kicked me and robbed me and fled. Then I found out who it was and I went and hid waiting for them and when they came by I jumped out with a bat and struck them. That’s retaliation. That’s eye for an eye in modern culture.

Self Defense would be if when I was walking and someone came up and struck me with a bat and as they were attacking me I fought them off. Even in this situation there are things we can look at in the Bible to better understand what is appropriate self defense. If someone slaps me is it appropriate for me to then break both of their legs and then begin stomping on their face until they are dead. No it’s not. If someone shoves me because I accidentally bumped into them and they then shove me again and say better watch out where you walking man is it appropriate for me to defend myself by taking out knife and stabbing them in the neck? No.

Even in the Torah we see similar examples.

Exodus 22:2-3
New American Standard Bible
2 If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no guilt for bloodshed on his account. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there will be guilt for bloodshed on his account—A thief shall certainly make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

When we look at verse 3 it helps us better understand the image in verse 2. Of the sun rises and it’s wrong then it must mean the previous verse is about in darkness. So if a thief was breaking into a persons house and the victim fights them at night in the dark and the strike kills the intruder they are not guilty but if the sun is risen, and it’s daylight, you can’t beat someone to death. You can see they are a thief and not a murder and you can’t just murder them.

So even self defense has reasonable limits placed on it. Self defense in the Bible was not a license to kill at will for whatever reason. Even is stand your ground states like florida you can’t just do whatever you want. If someone is on your property stealing apples from your tree you can’t just go out and hack them up with a ax or something. That’s absurd.

We also know that Jesus has called us to love one another and be at peace. So if someone is shoving me, it’s not really harming me. I probably won’t even above them back. I definitely won’t just shoot them or something. If someone is punching and kicking me, and I understand it’s because of some contentious situation. Like I’m in a gas station line wearing a mask and someone says something about why they don’t wear a mask and calls me a sheep and I call them a hick or something and so they start attacking hitting me I understand they are not trying to actually murder me. They are angry and attacking me. I’ll protect myself.
I’ll shove them, I may even punch and kick them back and as soon as they back down it’s over. I won’t pursue them as they run outside and I want dude them down and keep attacking them. I’ll practice self defense.

If I’m pumping gas and some random guy for no reason runs up on me with a knife slashing at me I’ll definitely protect myself. If I’m able to grab their arm and break it I will. If I’m able to shoot them I will. If I shoot them and they fall down I won’t continue to shoot them. For a fact if it’s safe to I will administer aid the best I can to keep them alive. I’ll hold something I’ve the wound to slow down bleeding. I’ll check for a exit wound. I’ll have called 911 to get an ambulance there.

None of those things are excessive, and none of those things are hateful or retaliation. None of those things are anti Jesus. But seeking reversion. Seeking an eye for a eye is.

I thought I was clear initially. Jesus used the word “resist”. Do not resist. To me, this means to allow evil doer to do whatever they intend. Otherwise, you are resisting.

Within the scope of the context though right? The context , again is not self defense…. It’s the legal system…. A single word is not what is creating the context. The context is Jesus is talking about retaliation as part of their legal system… that’s the context.

That’s why Jesus is not contradicting himself when he tells them to buy swords. Even the taking off the cloak is hyperlinking back to the chapters I previously shared. Jesus is paraphrasing from part of their legal systems regulations.

The context is Jesus’s sermon on various topics. If he was divine or representative of divine, he would know to speak more clearly. Otherwise, you have dozens of different Christian denominations each accusing others of misunderstandings the “context”. I get what you are saying, and perhaps you are right in your interpretation, but then why couldn’t Jesus speak more clearly? Why not add a clarification to indicate that he’s not against self defense? Why say “don’t resist” if you mean “don’t retaliate”? The whole of Christian pacifism is likely based on Jesus’s teaching against resisting evil.

To me it only seems unclear to you. It was very clear to me
and I imagine it was very clear to the Jews standing there. Do you mean that Jesus should have spoken in a way that made more sense to someone with limited knowledge on what he was quoting from 2,000 years later? From the sounds of it I think you were simply taught a terrible version of Christianity centered around a god who kills peole, tortures them forever in fire and ordered innocent people to allow evil people to harm them. It seems you were raised thinking god loved watching people tortured on this world and the next. But that’s not my understanding and so I simply don’t have that particular lens to deal with when reading the Bible.

There are several key beliefs/facts on which Crhistianity hinges.

The divinity of Christ being one.

If Christ is not divine then his salvation is from man, not God.

If Christ is the union of two humans he is not divine. At best he is adopted but the same thing applies God has no part in His salvation.

If Christ did not die, he was not raised from death.
If Christ was not raised from death then God has no power over death. Death is still the master of all and to be feared. And God is impotent and not worthy of worship

I am not a fan of “all or nothing” but in this case.
Either you accept what the Bible says about Christ, or You reject Christianity (and probably God as well)

Now I realise that there are many here who are happy to reject all things Godly, which will include the biblical view of Christ. Fair enough. But as a Christian what I state stands. If you reject the biblical Christ you are not a Christian. You may believe in God, but it is not a Christian faith. Christ is not part of the word Christian for nothing.

I reject any interpretation of the bible that rejects the divinity of Christ, which includes the virgin birth.

Richard

As pompous as this may sound I can claim mouthpiece to any Nonconformist church (in the UK at least) and in the Anglican church. Only the Catholic church denies my authority but I think you will find that its doctrines agree as do the creeds to which the church adheres.

As a Christian myself what makes Christ part of my faith is by adhering to his truths of righteousness and love regardless of the exact nature of his birth. I also think Jesus was 100% human. I don’t think he was a god. His father was Yahweh though. Now if that siring was genetic, or adoptive I don’t really know or care that much.

False logic. Denominations are a product of man not Jesus. The fact that there is no definitive interpretation of the bible is due to the complexity of the bible. It is not a “simple” text that can be just read. The bible declares that God speaks in parable and metaphor, as does Christ. And it would seem to be deliberate to separate the wheat from the chaff (to mix metaphors)

Just as God Himself is a mystery, the Bible is by no means as simple as people would like it to be. Let’s admit it, it would be so much easier just to take Scripture at face value. Oh yes, some people do!

Richard

That is part of the creed and the Trinity. Jesus was 100% man who could be injured and killed, but He was also 100% God. Which makes no mathematical sense, but that is the so called mystery.

And I will thank you not to change what I said by cutting off the tail end of a sentence.

Is the only redaction I will accept as valid.

I think I covered why it is the doctrine of the church as a whole. There may be arguments to cover your indifference but it is not strictly “Christian”.

Richard

Sola Scriptura in no ways implies reading the Bible ignorantly. The reformers who coined the phrase had nothing against serious study of texts related to the Bible. We are so far removed chronologically from the culture and language of the Bible, it is foolish to imply that we can sit down alone with it and rightly understand without cultural context and linguistic study.

1 Like

Kevin, this is a huge question, and a really important one. And as you see from people’s replies, there is not a solid consensus, when you ask a group of Christians coming from widely different backgrounds.
While I’m not a fundamentalist (anymore, if I ever was one), I think a high view of Scripture is essential to the faith, but even what that means is contested.
You have a few very good principals from Christy and Beaglelady, and I think Mark’s reply was insightful. Age and maturity will make a difference as you learn more and chew on what you learn.
I think your best course right now is to read the Bible, really learn it (easy for me to say, as I fail constantly at this) and prepare yourself constantly for the long haul as a disciple/student. Christians don’t “graduate” from Bible reading and study, or from the Gospel, for that matter.
In addition to really reading your Bible, get a few (one or two) basic books that give you important historical and cultural, and language background. There are many good ones, and that is overwhelming.
Go for quality over quantity, take your time.

2 Likes

I was just isolating a random part of a sentence like you did. I said a lot more too. I don’t believe in the Trinity. I believe in god who is Yahweh the father and creator and that Jesus was his son who was given all power and authority. He was elevated to be like god and once his fathers enemies were defeated he handed all power and authority back to God. If God wanted the Trinity in the Bible he would have placed it there.

Are there any that you can recommend?

He didn’t put abolitionist teachings in the Bible.

I think that he did. It’s why they used the Bible to counter the work done by slave owners. If you google any of them and their work you’ll see why they came to that conclusion. However let’s say they did not. I don’t need the Bible to tell me how to be a decent human being. Many of ethics goes beyond what the Bible even mentions. I think the Bible has some serious flaws.

But what the Bible does line out is it’s beliefs on spiritual matters that we can’t possibly know. I’m not wasting time on why I don’t believe in the Trinity but ultimately I have no reason to believe in it from theology. Just creeds down the road almost into the third century.

Yes. Complete agreement there. But I agree for a very different reason. My reason is that this is what distinguishes Christianity as a religion from other religions like Islam and is the focus of the first agreement in Nicea 325 AD on what Christians believe. The problem with these theological reasons given is that they connect to a whole theological system which is not in either the creed or the Bible and thus has no authority in defining Christianity.

Another difference between us is one of significance. Too many equate being Christian with being saved, which is why they want to pound on a bunch of theological reasons they think are SO important. But for me this is only about the definition of a word - “Christianity.” All the pompous pretentions thus removed. Salvation belongs to God not to Christianity.

reject??? I reject all kinds of things in determining my own understanding of what Christianity is about. But to make ones own understanding the measure of other people (particularly their salvation) is a dangerous thing to do. Jesus said the measure you give will be the measure you get. Are you sure you want to be measured by the correctness of your interpretation? Not me – no thank you!

But if you drop the pretentions and go back to the definition of “Christianity,” the virgin birth is neither a definitive inclusion nor of any important reason to exclude either. It is not in the original creed of Nicea 325 AD and so many things were added later to divide Christianity into smaller and smaller pieces that I cannot attach much significance to such additions. But since I see no contradiction with science, there is no great reason to exclude it either. It is a fact of science that conception only requires fertilization, not sexual intercourse. Sure, it would be quite a miracle to get the former without either the latter or the techniques of in-vitro. But… uh… a very grand miracle is par for the course in this particular event. LOL

I must respectfully disagree. That skates too close to the notion that the Bible is only true if interpreted correctly – which is just another way of saying that you have replaced the Bible with an interpreted revision. Some people find linguistic study and cultural context helpful, and I have no problem with that. But I am not letting someone interpret the Bible for me no matter how many degrees they have in linguistic studies or those particular cultures.