Struggling with this Challoner Note

[Mattjolley]

Heres a section from the gospel of matthew (Douay Rheims) and its note added by Challoner:

"…38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.

(The Notes 39 “Not to resist evil”… What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18., and Acts 23. "

Im struggling with this on two fronts, firstly, why does Christ say “not to resist evil”? What is the ‘evil’ we are not to resist? Does he mean “Dont try to stop bad things happening to you, let them happen so they show you are a christian because you endure sufferings”?

And the notes totally threw me with the reference to Christ’s passion in John 18 and Paul in Acts. With regard to turning the other cheek, Challoner makes it sound like Christ didnt turn the other cheek, but I’d say by enduring the various degrees of his suffering in the passion, he certainly did turn the other cheek, in a wider sense! Can anyone help me understand this because its really getting to me!

 

[Verbum]

Hi Matt,

“Not to resist evil” is merely the opposite of “an eye for an eye”. Jesus rejects the mentality of revenge and everything that follows should be interpreted in that light.

Verbum

 

[lanceg]

Heres a section from the gospel of matthew (Douay Rheims) and its note added by Challoner:

"…38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.

(The Notes 39 “Not to resist evil”… What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18., and Acts 23. "

Im struggling with this on two fronts, firstly, why does Christ say “not to resist evil”? What is the ‘evil’ we are not to resist? Does he mean “Dont try to stop bad things happening to you, let them happen so they show you are a christian because you endure sufferings”?

And the notes totally threw me with the reference to Christ’s passion in John 18 and Paul in Acts. With regard to turning the other cheek, Challoner makes it sound like Christ didnt turn the other cheek, but I’d say by enduring the various degrees of his suffering in the passion, he certainly did turn the other cheek, in a wider sense! Can anyone help me understand this because its really getting to me!

Dear friend, I love the Challoner-Doauy-Rheims Bible, but the notes are not inspired.

I think that in the earliest centuries of the Church, Christians were completely non-violent, and even pacifist by today’s standards. That is not to say we should necessarily hold an absolute pacifist position today. But the gospel is challening.

 

[rocketrob]

Orchard’s “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture” has this to say:

“The Mosaic code sanctioned the existing practice of vendetta, but restrained it by the principle…in Roman Law…[that] the compensation was not to exceed the damage.”

It then goes on to say:

“Our Lord, again speaking for the individual Christian soul and not for governments, subordinates strict justice to generous charity. Four little examples illustrate his point. Here again allowance must be made for the vigour of his language: he himself did not literally ‘turn the other cheek’, Jn 18:23, but his prayer, ‘Father forgive them’, Lk 23:34, shows what he means…”

I assume that a similar literal interpretation or comment is being applied for the instance of Paul’s interrogation in Acts 23.

rocketrob

 

[Todd_Easton]

From A Commentary on the New Testament, published in 1942 by the Catholic Biblical Association, pages 53-54, on Matthew 5:38-42:5, 38-42: The New Law of Talion. 38. Christ quotes these well-known phrases from the Mosiac Law (Ex. 21, 24; Lev. 24, 19 f; Deut. 19, 21) according to which willful damage was punished by inflicting the same damage on the offender. Other ancient nations, as the Babylonians and the Romans, had similar laws. Such laws were not dictated by a spirit of cruelty but rather a desire of restraining undue revenge. One may rightly doubt whether these laws were frequently carried out to the letter. 39-42. Parallel in Luke 6, 29 f. Christ perfects the Old Law on this point by prohibiting all private retaliation. He counteracts the spirit of revenge by inculcating the opposite spirit of charity by which His disciples should willingly give up their own just rights for the sake of peace. But Christ is not merely giving a counsel. His teaching on this matter “is partly of precept and partly of counsel. It is of precept: (a) that we should not seek revenge; (b) that we should rather suffer a second injury that revenge the first, (turn to him the other cheek also); (c) that we be willing to give up our rights whenever charity or the glory of God seem to demand it. It is of counsel that even though neither charity nor God’s glory demand it, we nevertheless obey Christ’s words literally for the sake of Christian self-denial” (Menochius). The words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 6, 7 f may be taken as an authentic commentary on Christ’s teaching in this matter. In the application of this principle our Lord gives various examples in a descending scale of violated rights: physical violence, unjust litigation, pressing into public service, asking for a gift, asking for a loan. Whoever forces thee: the Greek and the Latin words used here are derived from the Persian word for “messenger, courier,” and are based on the Persian custom according to which the public couriers had the authority to demand the necessary means of transportation from any citizen. The same word is used in Matt. 27, 32 and Mark 15, 21 of Simon of Cyrene being “forced” to carry the cross of Jesus.
You may also find the commentary in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 5 helpful. (link)

 

[thistle]

Heres a section from the gospel of matthew (Douay Rheims) and its note added by Challoner:

"…38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.

(The Notes 39 “Not to resist evil”… What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18., and Acts 23. "

Im struggling with this on two fronts, firstly, why does Christ say “not to resist evil”? What is the ‘evil’ we are not to resist? Does he mean “Dont try to stop bad things happening to you, let them happen so they show you are a christian because you endure sufferings”?

And the notes totally threw me with the reference to Christ’s passion in John 18 and Paul in Acts. With regard to turning the other cheek, Challoner makes it sound like Christ didnt turn the other cheek, but I’d say by enduring the various degrees of his suffering in the passion, he certainly did turn the other cheek, in a wider sense! Can anyone help me understand this because its really getting to me!

You might be better off using the Douey-Rheims with the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 39. Not to resist evil;[6] i.e. not to resist or revenge thyself of him that hath done evil to thee. — Turn him the other cheek. Let him have also thy cloak. These are to be understood as admonitions to Christians, to forgive every one, and to bear patiently all manner of private injuries. But we must not from hence conclude it unlawful for any one to have recourse to the laws, when a man is injured, and cannot have justice by any other means. (Witham) — What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge; but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ, nor St. Paul, turn the other cheek. (St. John xviii. and Acts xxiii.) (Challoner) — Hence also the Anabaptists infer, that it is not lawful to go to law even for our just rights; and Luther, that Christians ought not to resist the Turks. (Bristow)