Turn the Other Cheek – What Could Jesus Have Meant?

[Usagi]

We should certainly see everyone, even a perpetrator of evil, as a human made in the image of God and to be treated with a certain dignity because of that.

I don’t believe in complete passivity or pacifism, and the Church herself recognizes the propriety of self-defense and state-administered justice, but I am uncomfortable with the tone of this and other threads which suggest that Jesus really taught retaliation, and that the way of the martyrs might be morally wrong.

 

[HarryStotle]

As Bp Barron says, they cultural key to this is the left hand/right cheek thing.

Jesus’ concern is the salvation of every soul. Turning the other cheek presents the aggressor with a sort of mirror into his evil, with the hope of that aggression being dissipated.
Obviously, non violence is never, ever, capitulation to evil.
Rather, it enters into it, to redeem it.

This is the heart of the Incarnation right here:
God, rather than fighting violence with violence, or giving in to a cowardly capitulation, simply enters into the evil, in Christ, to redeem it.
So, the focus of non-violence is not on the offense itself, but on the salvation of the person.

I generally agree with your point here, but the question is what happens when the aggressor shows no signs of redemption but continues to infringe and overrun? Doesn’t something like ‘cast not your pearls before swine’ engage at some point and proportionate response is called for?

If so, at what point would that be?

Seems to me that on the proper reading, using the first century context of turn the other cheek, THAT point is when the aggressor continues to run roughshod over you after you have offered your other cheek in good faith.

At that point it is clear their motives are malevolent, rather than for some emotional or misinformed reason. I admit there might be indicators that would make it apparent that some aggressors aren’t purely malevolent, so case by case or rule of thumb rather than hard and fast rule would be how I would characterize the strategy.

 

[Usagi]

One (Jesus’) is an injunction to treat others as you want to be treated, independently of whether you have actually or will actually get that treatment in return.

The other (yours) bases your behavior on how others have actually behaved toward you, and could potentially excuse serious evil on your part.

I agree that Jesus does not demand we accept oppression or abuse in the guise of meekness, but He pretty clearly said that absolute retaliatory justice of the “eye for an eye” variety was a standard His followers should surpass, not pursue.

 

[HarryStotle]

We should certainly see everyone, even a perpetrator of evil, as a human made in the image of God and to be treated with a certain dignity because of that.

I don’t believe in complete passivity or pacifism, and the Church herself recognizes the propriety of self-defense and state-administered justice, but I am uncomfortable with the tone of this and other threads which suggest that Jesus really taught retaliation, and that the way of the martyrs might be morally wrong.

My intention on this thread is not to set “the tone” as Jesus taught retaliation, but to become clearer about what Jesus was getting at and, in a sense, better understand what was the proper ‘tone’ for retaliation that Jesus taught.

Would the actual tone Jesus set be something like ‘NEVER retaliate in kind?’ That would imply any sense of true justice would be off the table and all justice be placed in the hands of God in some kind of final judgement. Is that the tone Jesus intended for us?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Is there a balance between “not getting offended” and having a right to be offended?

Charity bears all things, believes all thing, suffers all things, endures all things.

As one translation puts it, charity hardly notices when others do it wrong.

We are to be radically different than the world, that means radical humility, radical meekness, radical patience, it is dying to self, it is dying for others - even those others “offend” us.

 

[TheLittleLady]

That would imply any sense of true justice would be off the table and all justice be placed in the hands of God in some kind of final judgement. Is that the tone Jesus intended for us?

Yes.

“Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord”

 

[HarryStotle]

One (Jesus’) is an injunction to treat others as you want to be treated, independently of whether you have actually or will actually get that treatment in return.

The other (yours) bases your behavior on how others have actually behaved toward you, and could potentially excuse serious evil on your part.

There is lots to be said, so I’ll itemize my points.

1. Jesus was speaking to “the crowd” when he taught the golden rule. This implies a society that had the Ten Commandments and the Law of Retaliation written in their blood, so to speak. It presumes a society imbued with a decent sense of justice.
2. By tying how we treat others to a subjective sense of justice (“as you would have done to you”) Jesus had to be assuming the well-formed moral and just conscience of the “you” upon whom he moors the rule.
3. There is both a benefit and a pitfall to attaching the golden rule to the subjective ‘you.’ The benefit is that it internalizes all sense of justice such that each person has ownership and responsibility for it. The pitfall is that it might appear to remove objective standards from our sense of justice as if justice is then merely something like empathy or determined entirely by that ‘you.’
4. This is not such a problem where the society wherein one lives is basically decent and just, but it definitely is a problem for a society where moral relativism or post-modernism have flourished and predominate in the moral landscape.
5. For a basically just person the golden rule is really no different than the law of retaliation/retribution. A basically moral person who commits a crime or does wrong will admit that they owe a debt to the other person or to society so they have no problem with paying retribution – an eye for an eye, so called. So “do unto others” where it is the others who have done wrong amounts to the same thing as ‘justice served’ or ‘let the punishment fit the crime.’ The golden rule reasoning would be if I did wrong I deserve the appropriate punishment, so the ‘other’ ought also be punished appropriately.
6. In a society where any basic sense of justice has been eroded, tying the “unto others” to a subjective amoral or immoral narcissist could have catastrophic effects. The reasoning might be something like: Well, if I committed murder or robbed I would personally rather there not be any serious consequences and would also like my responsibility for wrongdoing to be mitigated by my situation, emotional state, or some other external factor so that I am not held responsible and can get on with enjoying life, so that is what I will promote when “do unto others” comes up. Couple that with no long term foresight and only immediate emotional gratification counting for anything among the majority of society and the promotion of true justice will take a severe hit.
7. There are, additionally, serious implications when the definition of ‘justice’ within a society tends towards ‘equality of outcomes’ rather than the more sane ‘treat like things alike’ or ‘equality of opportunity’ or ‘to each what is properly owed.’ More on this in another post.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I suppose I’ve seen too many people use an “eye for an eye” as justification for capital punishment. But you’re right. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you…”

 

[goout]

Usagi:

One (Jesus’) is an injunction to treat others as you want to be treated, independently of whether you have actually or will actually get that treatment in return.

The other (yours) bases your behavior on how others have actually behaved toward you, and could potentially excuse serious evil on your part.

There is lots to be said about these two points, so I’ll itemize my points to make your future response neater.

1. Jesus was speaking to “the crowd” when he taught the golden rule. This implies a society that had the Ten Commandments and the Law of Retaliation written in their blood, so to speak. It presumes a society imbued with a decent sense of justice.
2. By tying how we treat others to a subjective sense of justice (“as you would have done to you”) Jesus had to be assuming the well-formed moral and just conscience of the “you” upon whom he moors the rule.

How do you arrive at the conclusion of the golden rule being subjective?
It’s not subjective at all. It ties the dignity of the human person to objective good. His use of personal awareness is to awaken a dulled conscience. In effect, “you and I are both children of the same God”.
The morality of the golden rule is not subjective. He Himself objectively embodies it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

the Church herself recognizes the propriety of self-defense and state-administered justice

The Church today per CCC 2267 recognizes state-administered justice in the form of capital punishment only in very rare if not practically non-existent cases.

 

[HarryStotle]

How do you arrive at the conclusion of the golden rule being subjective?
It’s not subjective at all. It ties the dignity of the human person to objective good. His use of personal awareness is to awaken a dulled conscience. In effect, “you and I are both children of the same God”.
The morality of the golden rule is not subjective. He Himself objectively embodies it.

Sure, that is your working assumption, but that isn’t necessarily everyone’s assumption who uses the golden rule to determine their own outlook on how others ought to be treated.

Someone who tends to excuse their own behaviour and avoid just retribution will have a tendency to excuse the behaviour of others if they were to invoke the golden rule in a way consistent with their moral outlook or lack of it, will they not?

 

[Annie]

Intriguing topic, Harry! My thoughts have been provoked.

1. A quote from CS Lewis comes to my mind: (from God in the Dock): Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Could it be that we, as individuals, are to exhaust the wicked, so they fully understand that their way is exhaustable, that it will not ultimately lead to happiness?

Hmmm. Which leads to the conclusion that we should only fight against those who are trying to do good, so maybe not a good answer to the problem!

 

[goout]

goout:

How do you arrive at the conclusion of the golden rule being subjective?
It’s not subjective at all. It ties the dignity of the human person to objective good. His use of personal awareness is to awaken a dulled conscience. In effect, “you and I are both children of the same God”.
The morality of the golden rule is not subjective. He Himself objectively embodies it.

Sure, that is your working assumption, but that isn’t necessarily everyone’s assumption who uses the golden rule to determine their own outlook on how others ought to be treated.

Someone who tends to excuse their own behaviour and avoid just retribution will have a tendency to excuse the behaviour of others if they were to invoke the golden rule in a way consistent with their moral outlook or lack of it, will they not?

I seriously have no idea what you are saying I’m sorry.
You are tying yourself into knots to prove a POV.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Could it be that we, as individuals, are to exhaust the wicked, so they fully understand that their way is exhaustable, that it will not ultimately lead to happiness?

We are to love the wicked and do good to those who dispitefully use us.

 

[HarryStotle]

Usagi:

the Church herself recognizes the propriety of self-defense and state-administered justice

The Church today per CCC 2267 recognizes state-administered justice in the form of capital punishment only in very rare if not practically non-existent cases.

Please don’t turn this into a debate on capital punishment. That has been debated ad nauseam on CAF without much in the way of added insight.

I am looking for insights into the underlying or basic principles behind ‘turn the other cheek,’ not whether some specific punishment should be imposed.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Okay you can keep looking. I’m outta here.

 

[HarryStotle]

Intriguing topic, Harry! My thoughts have been provoked.

1. A quote from CS Lewis comes to my mind: (from God in the Dock): Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Could it be that we, as individuals, are to exhaust the wicked, so they fully understand that their way is exhaustable, that it will not ultimately lead to happiness?

This is worth thinking about.

Merely standing one’s ground would seem less of an expenditure of energy than active aggression or imposition so there might be something to this.

Add to that the realization that God is Inexhaustible Being Itself, standing with God would seem to imply “my burden is easy and my yoke is light.” Ergo, no high maintenance lifestyle is called for.

Calls to mind “noise and fury signifying nothing.”

Hmmm. Which leads to the conclusion that we should only fight against those who are trying to do good, so maybe not a good answer to the problem!

I wouldn’t characterize it as fighting those “who are trying to do good.” These, generally, are just living their lives according to or consistent with what they believe is good.

Rather, I think it is a fight – perhaps even in your ‘resist until they are exhausted’ sense – against those (activists, mostly) who are trying to impose their version of the good – sincerely exercised for the good of its victims – on everyone else. Lewis’ “omnipotent moral busybodies.”

 

[TheLittleLady]

Rather, I think it is a fight against those (activists, mostly) who are trying to impose their version of the good on everyone else. Lewis’ “omnipotent moral busybodies.”

Ahhh, so this comes down to politics. Outta here.

 

[Annie]

No, no, I was just kidding around, and not at all thinking of politics! Sometimes my weird sense of humor gets the better of me

 

[Annie]

No, I was referring to the infernal busybodies… I was just amused by the conjunction of not fighting against those trying to harm others and fighting against those who are trying to do good,. Basically, I thought it showed I was wrong.

Just ignore my flight into absurdity, please