Turn the other cheek?

[BarbaraTherese]

This may have been discussed elsewhere and if so, I’d be grateful if someone would redirect me…

Jesus did not always turn the other cheek…at times he gave the pharisees for example a right telling off as it were. He lost his cool in the temple completely. Also at times he chided his apostles and other instances. St. Paul and some of the other Letter writers in the New Testament while advocating a sort of non-anger approach to everything… did tell people off as it were.

Do you think there is a case for not continually holding back from anger?

If so, what criteria would you apply?..

…I suffer Bipolar Disorder which is one of the two major mental illness and is completely epsodic…between times I am chronically normal as anyone. I am an A student on an adult campus (ordinary College campus for adults) and hence not mentally retarded (no excuse to be nasty if I were) in any way. At times others (not knowing me well) will be patronizing and condescending treating me as if I am mentally deficient … at times with veiled insults. I dont think I should take this kind of treatment (mostly I do) and should set people straight. I dont mean get angry outright… but set them straight that I am neither mentally deficient nor mentally ill all the time (in fact episodes are very rare!)… what would you do? Or what do you think is the correct moral response?

As a moral issue, should we be sweet and kind all the time?

If we let another get away with patronizing and condescending behaviour it reinforces it and perhaps to the detriment of others.

Genuinely puzzled! … Barb

 

[Magicsilence]

Hey barb, its funny how you seem to be on these forums when im on, but we are on complete opposite sides of the world.

I think the central question here is whether an action ever warrants a response of anger.

The answer is yes, many things give rise to anger, but we must be careful not to turn it into hate.

Think carefully about what Jesus did, these people were insulting the holy trinity, and even Jesus said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. If they cannot be forgiven then this is an instance of where Our Lord is not turning the other cheek, saying “hit me again”, but taking a stand. However i do not feel that this example gives us warrant to have hate for others, as hate is required (in mortals anyway) for an action to follow.

Can you imagine if our Lord had NOT overturned the stalls within the temple, it would have represented his acceptance to those defacing God, any other action but the one he took would have been wrong, it could have shown a gentle, all - loving God who saves all no matter what, and that is clearly NOT what Jesus said about his father.

Jesus gave us a clear message and that was to turn the other cheek. However he also said that to those towns who did not listen to the apostles, they were to shake the dust from their sandles and leave, for the punishment for that town would have been massive if God had chosen to punish them, or words to that effect.

What Jesus is saying that we on earth, mere mortals, should turn the other cheek, it is not our place to have hate for others, for ONLY GOD truly knows if a person is deserved of such an emotion. Jesus, as GOD as a man, had every right to do whatever he liked to those in the temple, for he could truly see into their very souls.

To summarize, its simple, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, and we obey Him, because he committed an action it does not mean we should copy it, He is God, and has given us clear instructions on what to do. To look at his actions and think that it means we should imitate them is wrong, for God alone has the authority to do such things. That is why one should look at the teachings of Jesus, and not necessarily his actions, because His actions came from His divine ability to see into ones heart, his teachings came to us for us to learn from them.

Remember, Do as they say, not as they do.

God punished thousands of people in the OT, does it make it right for US to do such a thing.

People are the property of our Lord, what he does with them is none of our business, he may do whatever he wants. But to think that we have the right to do something to another person is very very wrong. This highlights the perfectness of the teachings of Jesus when he told us to love our enemies, for even thieves love other thieves, because it represents how we should interact with the property of God.

Sorry for the long post and getting a little off the ball,

Andre.

 

[puzzleannie]

the injunction to turn the other cheek is not specifically a warning against expressing your anger, it is part of a longer discourse on how to treat your enemies and those who persecute you. Specifically, it was intended to prepare the disciples for the persecutions that would surely follow if they remained faithful to Him. He was also foretelling his own Passion and the manner in which He endured it. His humility and acceptance of punishment did not prevent Him from speaking the Truth when questioned by the Jews and the Romans.

the cleansing of the temple was not a matter of “losing His cool” and having a temper tantrum. He was using both words and actions to make the point about My Father’s house is a house of prayer. He did not lash out at individuals or strike any person, in fact he showed gentleness to the birds and animals by freeing them. He was also making explicit the difference between righteous anger, “zeal for God’s house” and for justice, and the kind of anger that arises from petty personal causes.

as far as dealing with issues of mental health, part of our learning to deal with these crosses is help in modifying our reactions to things that tend to trigger outbursts or episodes, and learning to do so, by someone afflicted with such a disorder, represents a huge victory. As much as therapy and medication contribute, such an effort also requires grace, and is impossible without such grace, so attention to prayer life and spiritual growth is essential for those of us battling these demons.

in this context, may I ask you all for continued prayer for someone I asked you to pray for last year, this time of thanksgiving, she has made tremendous progress through therapy and medication and is literally a new woman, living on her own, going to school, and through it all has continued her practice of daily adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, and is a true prayer warrior.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Hey barb, its funny how you seem to be on these forums when im on, but we are on complete opposite sides of the world.

…coincidence?..or The Holy Spirit?..

People are the property of our Lord, what he does with them is none of our business, he may do whatever he wants. But to think that we have the right to do something to another person is very very wrong. This highlights the perfectness of the teachings of Jesus when he told us to love our enemies, for even thieves love other thieves, because it represents how we should interact with the property of God.

Sorry for the long post and getting a little off the ball,

…thank you Andre for the comments and not at all long or off the ball. This is another thread that when it plays itself out I will be copying, cutting and pasting into Word then printing for a reference file on the subject of anger/God’s Will. So thank you for every comments you made…

Regards, Barb

 

[threej_lc]

This has traditionally been my interpretation of “Turn the other cheek.”

This explanation taken from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek

Those interpreting this passage figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. They note that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted is in effect demanding equality. Further, it is argued, by handing over one’s cloak in addition to one’s tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13: “When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.”

By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27: “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.”

Promoters of the nonviolent interpretation further argue that the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law: commonly invoked Roman law allowed a Roman soldier to demand that citizens of occupied territories carry the soldier’s military gear for one mile, but prohibited the soldier from forcing an individual to go further than one mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.

 

[Petertherock]

This is an interesting discussion. Yesterday, my Priest gave a homily about how God was violent a lot of times. God drowned the entire Egyptian Army in the Sea and God also flooded the world and burned Soddom and Gomorrah. The priest said people often wonder about how we call God a peaceful and loving God yet God was violent in a lot of cases.

He went on to say you have to look at scripture in the spiritual sense. He said as Paul says, the wages of sin is death. So by the Egyptians rejecting God their sin cost them their lives. It wasn’t so much God killing them as it was death was the punishment for their sin.

I myself have a hard time with the turn the other cheek thing. I just can’t fathom letting the terrorists attack us as many times as they want while we just turn the other cheek. I pray for the terrorists. I even pray for the conversion of Osama Bin Laden. But if given the opportunity I would put a bullet in him if I had the opportunity because I know it would save the lives of countless people throughout the world. So this is the one part of my faith I have a hard time with.

 

[777]

You talkin’ 'bout holy anger?

 

[Magicsilence]

Petertherock:

I pray for the terrorists. I even pray for the conversion of Osama Bin Laden. But if given the opportunity I would put a bullet in him if I had the opportunity because I know it would save the lives of countless people throughout the world. So this is the one part of my faith I have a hard time with.

Although it is very hard to turn the other cheek, Jesus never said it would be simple and easy to follow him.

I hope that you will change that view on putting a bullet into Bin Laden, im sure if Jesus were beside you youd drop the gun sharpish. Jesus IS around us constantly, watching recording remembering everything we do, say and write, the means NEVER justify an end.

 

[Christy_Beth]

I think the best bit on this that I’ve ever heard was on a video with Fr. John Corapi talking. It’s his “personal testimony.” He covers this. Basically, he says that if someone sins against us, we are to turn the other cheek. But when it comes to moral evil, that’s the last thing to do. Yes, we are to turn the other cheek, but not when it comes to moral evil.

One example he uses is abortion. He says there are 50 million catholics in america. But if there were that many catholics with any backbone, we would be seeing 1.5million abortions each year. That is something that we shouldn’t turn our cheeks to.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Petertherock:

This is an interesting discussion. Yesterday, my Priest gave a homily about how God was violent a lot of times. God drowned the entire Egyptian Army in the Sea and God also flooded the world and burned Soddom and Gomorrah. The priest said people often wonder about how we call God a peaceful and loving God yet God was violent in a lot of cases.

He went on to say you have to look at scripture in the spiritual sense. He said as Paul says, the wages of sin is death. So by the Egyptians rejecting God their sin cost them their lives. It wasn’t so much God killing them as it was death was the punishment for their sin.

I myself have a hard time with the turn the other cheek thing. I just can’t fathom letting the terrorists attack us as many times as they want while we just turn the other cheek. I pray for the terrorists. I even pray for the conversion of Osama Bin Laden. But if given the opportunity I would put a bullet in him if I had the opportunity because I know it would save the lives of countless people throughout the world. So this is the one part of my faith I have a hard time with.

Hi there Petertherock…re your comment in the final paragraph above … if we execute Bin Laden by any means we will not be saving the lives of countless people I dont think, rather we will be creating a martyr in an executed Bin Laden and inflame more people to the cause of terrorism and inspire current terrorists even further to their cause. Terrorism and terrorists would make a hero and martyr to the cause of an executed leader.

In pondering the words of Jesus re “turn the other cheek”, I was reading something on the internet the other day and it spoke of the impossibility of following perfectly all Jesus instructed…in fact the article stated that at times Jesus even did not carry out the letter of all his instructions to us…as an example when he cleared the temple, was he turning the other cheek?

It also came home to me in a newer way in pondering the article that if I be came the holiest person ever to walk the earth (gross exaggeration with considerable literary and theological licence !!!)…I still would fall far short of absolute holiness (God alone is holy!)…we always, always, always, always:banghead: are falling short of the mark which is why I can justly call myself a sinner on absolutely every and all occasions no matter how hard I may try and perhaps succeed.

Send regards,
Barb - Bethany, South Australia

 

[Fortiterinre]

Hi Barb,

This is a great question; I often say that Jesus was both the lamb of God as well as the lion of Judah, and as Christians we will have to be both like a lamb as well as a lion (or in other words, as sly as foxes and as simple as doves).

But I am not sure this is a cheek-turning issue; rather, for your own privacy you might want to review whom you tell about your diagnosis. Human nature what it is, people are more likely to stereotype you as “that bipolar girl” rather than “that straight-A student.” Not telling some people about your Dx does not imply any misplaced shame or embarrassment on your part; in fact you have much of which to be proud. But for your own ease and peace of mind, you shouldn’t feel that you have to discuss it more than you wish, especially when people are liable to be condescending.

 

[777]

ice blue satin ribbon bows

BarbaraTherese:

Hi there Petertherock…re your comment in the final paragraph above … if we execute Bin Laden by any means we will not be saving the lives of countless people I dont think, rather we will be creating a martyr in an executed Bin Laden and inflame more people to the cause of terrorism and inspire current terrorists even further to their cause. Terrorism and terrorists would make a hero and martyr to the cause of an executed leader.

In pondering the words of Jesus re “turn the other cheek”, I was reading something on the internet the other day and it spoke of the impossibility of following perfectly all Jesus instructed…in fact the article stated that at times Jesus even did not carry out the letter of all his instructions to us…as an example when he cleared the temple, was he turning the other cheek?

It also came home to me in a newer way in pondering the article that if I be came the holiest person ever to walk the earth (gross exaggeration with considerable literary and theological licence !!!)…I still would fall far short of absolute holiness (God alone is holy!)…we always, always, always, always:banghead: are falling short of the mark which is why I can justly call myself a sinner on absolutely every and all occasions no matter how hard I may try and perhaps succeed.

Send regards,
Barb - Bethany, South Australia

Well said!! The same is true when it comes to ending the likes of Ted Bundy, Tim Mc Veigh, the Washington sniper the one that keeled Sam Runyon, Scott Peterson, et al, tokillers and crimnals, they have died as martrys, and ending their lives will only (name removed by moderator)ire would be killers to avenge their deaths.

 

[Ignatias20]

I once had a Holy Cross Father teaching us in a religion class. The class was "The Four Gospels. The Priest was a prof at Notre Dame.

He asked us what we understood about that verse. “If you are struck on the cheek, turh your other cheek.”

Finally he said it does not mean you cannot defend yourself or your family. It does mean as Thomas Aquinas said, "You may defend yourself or another from bodily harm. But you may not seek private revenge because in the Old Testement that was settled by having the state punish the offender."

I found this. It was written by an Apologist from California - a Monsenior.
"In verse 39 Christ now instructs them that it is the duty of every man to bear patiently the injuries that he receives (Calvin) and not to seek revenge. It is my conviction that the Lord is NOT referring to the matter of “self defense” in this context. He is NOT saying here that it is sinful for one to defend himself and/or his family when being threatened. If He were then this would be a contradiction to what Scripture says elsewhere (see below and also Pratt’s article: “What Does the Bible Say about Gun Control?”). This is where I part with some conservative and Reformed commentators (such as Ridderbos) who imply that one must resist “even defending himself” . If they mean that in all instances this ought to be the case then they are wrong. Again, the Lord does not allow for “revengence” by the individual. However, defending himself or his family is certainly not forbidden.

If this text is not speaking about self defense, what does the Lord mean when He says “not to resist an evil person” and then adds “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also”? Admittedly this appears to be a pacifist text. H.N. Ridderbos does help us out in this area when he says:

Jesus specifically mentions the right here , even though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. “Matthew”: Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)
At a closer look this passage deals with how one must respond after being insulted. This is not a passage dealing with what one must do when being physically attacked and having one’s life being threatened. It is, however, one that reinforces the idea that “revenge” is not to be left in the hands of the individual victim. Personal revenge and even “lynch-law” is certainly out of the question. The Lord has already set up the means to deal with punishing the offender by the sword of the state.