Turning the other cheek vs. fighting back

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Genesis315

Guest
Ok, when should one turn the other cheek and when should one fight back?

Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, but he also told his desciples to carry a sword.

He let himself be totally brutalized, but He also drove people out of the temple with a whip.

So, when is each response appropriate?

It seems to me that when one is personally under attack, the turning of the cheek is appropriate, but when someone else is under attack, defending them physically is appropriate.

What do you guys think?
 
Excellent topic, Genesis,

… and one that I have struggled with often as I tried to figure it all out. I hope many will join in here.

I would guess, first of all, that it might depend on the severity of what is taking place, and the degree of self-control or virtue we have – so that if we do “fight back,” it will be done in pure charity, and with wisdom.

It is often very difficult to keep our cool when we are seething with indignation over an affront to our person. Nine times out of ten, we will cause more problems than if we simply bear the wrong in patient silence, conscious that we, too, have many faults that others must bear from us. This helps us also to develop patience.

We have been discussing this on St. Therese’s thread, for she was heroic in suffering wrongs done to her in community. The difference is that she welcomed opportunities to absorb these affronts and offer them to God for others. So for her, it was a virtuous act, meriting graces for herself and those for whom she bore it, solely due to her interior disposition.

Yet I agree there are times we need to love our neighbor as much as oneself, giving words of correction or admonition in hopes of reclaiming them from error or harm. It is wise to have a reasonable expectation that the person(s) will listen and be helped rather than harmed. There are also some who are programmed not to hear anyone whatsoever. God Himself spoke through the psalmist saying, “If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts!”

Whenever we go against our gut feeling, continously disobeying the tiny voice of conscience, eventually we cannot hear God at all, sad to say. One can become hard of heart and immune to any form of correction or advice.

:love: Carole
 
40.png
Joysong:
It is wise to have a reasonable expectation that the person(s) will listen and be helped rather than harmed.
This is an interesting thought. Consider the result of action and the result of inaction. Also, our motivation must be proper and not sinful.

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
 
St. Augustine of Hippo from On the Sermon on the Mount
  1. But it may be asked what the right cheek means. For this is the reading we find in the Greek copies, which are most worthy of confidence; though many Latin ones have only the word “cheek,” without the addition of “right.” Now the face is that by which any one is recognised; and we read in the apostle’s writings, “For ye suffer? if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face:” then immediately he adds, “I speak as concerning reproach;” so that he explains what striking on the face is, viz. to be contemned and despised. Nor is this indeed said by the apostle for this reason, that they should not bear with those parties; but that they should bear with himself rather, who so loved them, that he was willing that he himself should be spent for them. But since the face cannot be called right and left, and yet there may be a worth according to the estimate of God and according to the estimate of this world, it is so distributed as it were into the right and left cheek that whatever disciple of Christ might have to bear reproach for being a Christian, he should be much more ready to bear reproach in himself, if he possesses any of the honours of this world. Thus this same apostle, if he had kept silence respecting the dignity which he had in the world, when men were persecuting in him the Christian name, would not have presented the other cheek to those that were smiting the right one. For when he said, I am a Roman citizen, he was not unprepared to submit to be despised, in that which he reckoned as least, by those who had despised in him so precious and life-giving a name. For did he at all the less on that account afterwards submit to the chains, which it was not lawful to put on Roman citizens, or did lie wish to accuse any one of this injury? And if any spared him on account of the name of Roman citizenship, yet he did not on that account refrain from offering an object they might strike at, since he wished by his patience to cure of so great perversity those whom he saw honouring in him what belonged to the left members rather than the right. For that point only is to be attended to, in what spirit he did everything, how benevolently and mildly he acted toward those from whom he was suffering such things. For when he was smitten with the hand by order of the high priest, what he seemed to say contumeliously when he affirms, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall,” sounds like an insult to those who do not understand it; but to those who do, it is a prophecy. For a whited wall is hypocrisy, i.e. pretence holding forth the sacerdotal dignity before itself, and under this name, as under a white covering, concealing an inner and as it were sordid baseness. For what belonged to humility he wonderfully preserved, when, on its being said to him, “Revilest thou the high priest?” he replied, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” And here he showed with what calmness he had spoken that which he seemed to have spoken in anger, because he answered so quickly and so mildly, which cannot be done by those who are indignant and thrown into confusion. And in that very statement he spoke the truth to those who understood him, “I wist not that he was the high priest:” as if he said, I know another High Priest, for whose name I bear such things, whom it is not lawful to revile, and whom ye revile, since in me it is nothing else but His name that ye hate. Thus, therefore, it is necessary for one not to boast of such things in a hypocritical way, but to be prepared in the heart itself for all things, so that he can sing that prophetic word, “My heart is prepared, O God, my heart is prepared.” For many have learned how to offer the other cheek, but do not know how to love him by whom they are struck. But in truth, the Lord Himself, who certainly was the first to fulfil the precepts which He taught, did not offer the other cheek to the servant of the high priest when smiting Him thereon; but, so far from that, said, “If I have spoken evil, hear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” Yet was He not on that account unprepared in heart, for the salvation of all, not merely to be smitten on the other cheek, but even to have His whole body crucified.
 
Dear Philip,

RE: All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

Oh my, you brought up a real dilemma. Are you familiar with the story of Mathathias in 1 Mach. 2:27-48? There is a perfect example of two different types of people - the first group turned the other cheek and they all died. Mathathias and his followers fought hard and slew the enemy, “and yielded not the horn to the sinner.” vs. 48.

What I saw today, but missed the many times I reflected on this chapter, is the wording in verse 44: “And they gathered an army, and slew the sinners in their wrath, and the wicked men in their indignation; and the rest fled to the nations for safety.”

They won the battle, but I am now wondering if it was done with a spirit that pleased God? Does anything done in wrath, even though it has a good end, have the strength of virtue? I used to think the first group was right, many years ago, that they preferred death rather than fight, and rather than disobey God by worshipping idols.

I suppose it depends on the interior motive and inspiration from God. Any ideas on this?
 
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=142

*Absolute Pacifism?
*fr. William Most
**The Scriptural Picture **

** Introduction:** The charge is made that Isaiah 2:1 contradicts Joel 4:10 (RSV = 3:10). For Isaiah says they will beat their swords into ploughshares, but Joel says: Beat your ploughshares into swords.

There is really no contradiction if one takes the trouble to look - so many seem to want to find contradictions, and do not really try. Two different occasions are meant in the two texts. Isaiah speaks of the Messianic age, in a highly colored, poetically idealized picture, as we see from 11:6-9 which says the wolf will be the guest of the lamb, the lion will eat hay etc. Had the Jews accepted Christ, this picture, minus of course some poetic exaggeration, would have been fulfilled. But the picture in Joel is quite different, referring as we said, to a different occasion. A note in New American Bible on the passage of Joel says that the warlike weapons are made in response to God’s call for armies, which He picked to expel forever the unlawful invaders from the promised land. After that, swords would no longer be needed, and could be turned into ploughshares.

Certainly Isaiah is not forbidding all war. If one thought that, we could quote, in an equally simplistic way, the text of Joel.

**cont. at link
**

Excellent read
 
40.png
Joysong:
Dear Philip,

RE: All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

Oh my, you brought up a real dilemma. Are you familiar with the story of Mathathias in 1 Mach. 2:27-48? There is a perfect example of two different types of people - the first group turned the other cheek and they all died. Mathathias and his followers fought hard and slew the enemy, “and yielded not the horn to the sinner.” vs. 48.

What I saw today, but missed the many times I reflected on this chapter, is the wording in verse 44: “And they gathered an army, and slew the sinners in their wrath, and the wicked men in their indignation; and the rest fled to the nations for safety.”

They won the battle, but I am now wondering if it was done with a spirit that pleased God? Does anything done in wrath, even though it has a good end, have the strength of virtue? I used to think the first group was right, many years ago, that they preferred death rather than fight, and rather than disobey God by worshipping idols.

I suppose it depends on the interior motive and inspiration from God. Any ideas on this?
Num.25

1
] While Israel dwelt in Shittim the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab.

2] These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods.
3] So Israel yoked himself to Ba’al of Pe’or. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel;
4] and the LORD said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them in the sun before the LORD, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.”
5] And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you slay his men who have yoked themselves to Ba’al of Pe’or.”
6] And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Mid’ianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.

7] **When Phin’ehas the son of Elea’zar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation, and took a spear in his hand
****8] and went after the man of Israel into the inner room, and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her body. Thus the plague was stayed from the people of Israel. **
9] Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.
10] And the LORD said to Moses,

**
****11] “Phin’ehas the son of Elea’zar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy.
****12] Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace;
****13] and it shall be to him, and to his descendants after him, the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the people of Israel.’” **
14] The name of the slain man of Israel, who was slain with the Mid’ianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu, head of a fathers’ house belonging to the Simeonites.

15] And the name of the Mid’ianite woman who was slain was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, who was the head of the people of a fathers’ house in Mid’ian.
16] And the LORD said to Moses,

17] "Harass the Mid’ianites, and smite them;

18] for they have harassed you with their wiles, with which they beguiled you in the matter of Pe’or, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Mid’ian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague on account of Pe’or."
 
**Joysong:
Code:
			 *Dear Philip,
RE: All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

Oh my, you brought up a real dilemma. Are you familiar with the story of Mathathias in 1 Mach. 2:27-48? There is a perfect example of two different types of people - the first group turned the other cheek and they all died. Mathathias and his followers fought hard and slew the enemy, “and yielded not the horn to the sinner.” vs. 48.

What I saw today, but missed the many times I reflected on this chapter, is the wording in verse 44: “And they gathered an army, and slew the sinners in their wrath, and the wicked men in their indignation; and the rest fled to the nations for safety.”

They won the battle, but I am now wondering if it was done with a spirit that pleased God? Does anything done in wrath, even though it has a good end, have the strength of virtue? I used to think the first group was right, many years ago, that they preferred death rather than fight, and rather than disobey God by worshipping idols.

I suppose it depends on the interior motive and inspiration from God. Any ideas on this?*

**
ON clearing the temple
**
John 2:17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for thy house will consume me.”

 
Dear Trelow,

I’m not sure I understand your meaning as I read your verse, "**“Zeal for thy house will consume me.” **Are you saying that you believe the second group (Mathathias) was righteous in slaying their persecutors, in the same manner that Christ overturned the tables in the temple? In spite of the wrath in the hearts of Mathathias and his men? Can we believe it was holy zeal?

Can anyone achieve the justice of God in avenging His honor, when in a state of wrath and indignation? If we have the mind of Christ and are moved by His Spirit, maybe yes. Otherwise, can we fool ourselves into believing our “righteous anger” is justified as we take vengence on our “enemy?”

Trelow had a good post from St. Augustine, where he wrote:
And here he showed with what calmness he had spoken that which he seemed to have spoken in anger, because he answered so quickly and so mildly, which cannot be done by those who are indignant and thrown into confusion.
Carole
 
40.png
Joysong:
Dear Trelow,

I’m not sure I understand your meaning as I read your verse, "**“Zeal for thy house will consume me.” **Are you saying that you believe the second group (Mathathias) was righteous in slaying their persecutors, in the same manner that Christ overturned the tables in the temple? In spite of the wrath in the hearts of Mathathias and his men? Can we believe it was holy zeal?

Can anyone achieve the justice of God in avenging His honor, when in a state of wrath and indignation? If we have the mind of Christ and are moved by His Spirit, maybe yes. Otherwise, can we fool ourselves into believing our “righteous anger” is justified as we take vengence on our “enemy?”
I’m not filmilar with Maccabees yet, brand new at this Catholic bit. But yes, I beleive that the Holy Scriptures show that wrath can be holy. Phin’ehas is an exclent example, as is God HImself in almost evey book of the Old Testament pouring out his wrath.

The reason you are wrathful/indignatious is the important part of the equation. It can be a good and holy thing.

I’m sure Peter thought he was doing good tring to cleave heads and all. And even though it was not the right time for such, I’d wager it was reckoned to him as rightouness. Zeal for the Lord, it’s a good thing.

I doub’t he tossed in and thrown into confusion just for dramatic effect, it’s an important part of the situation.
 
Dear Trelow,
40.png
Trelow:
I’m sure Peter thought he was doing good tring to cleave heads and all. And even though it was not the right time for such, I’d wager it was reckoned to him as rightouness. Zeal for the Lord, it’s a good thing.
http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif Hmm. I’m thinking about James and John, known as “Sons of Thunder” in scripture, probably because of their “meekness?” http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Remember when they wanted to rain down fire and brimstone on the ones who would not accept Jesus? The Lord chided and forbade them, saying, “You do not know what spirit you are!” This is the same James who learned from this, and later wrote, "“For the wrath of man does not work the justice of God.” (Jas. 1:20)

Where did these apostles get the idea it was lawful? Old Testament theology, I suppose, as practiced by one of the greats, Elijah, who actually did rain down fire and brimstone on his adversaries.

I have often thought that there are times for licit retaliation, and times for holding back. As for knowing which is which, my golly, we really need the help of the Holy Spirit!

Carole
 
40.png
Joysong:
I have often thought that there are times for licit retaliation, and times for holding back. As for knowing which is which, my golly, we really need the help of the Holy Spirit!
Amen.
 
40.png
Joysong:
I have often thought that there are times for licit retaliation, and times for holding back.

Carole
This sounds a little like Ecclesiastes, a time for everything under the sun.

The Bible is full of holy men (and women) taking up arms against evil, yet we know that God’s name is Mercy. In the greatest generation, we have seen many heroes of virtuous motives stand against a world-wide evil.

In today’s society, does anyone really wish that the military and law enforcement was devoid of those who strive for the high moral ground? If not for those who are willing to stand in the gap against the forces of chaos, our society (no society) could exist and we would not have this debate, this internet, or much of our lives.
 
One should always turn the other cheek to avoid a fight and one should always fight to defend himself, to save himself.

Cheek first, no go, then fight.
 
Bear in mind, first of all, that the “other cheek” passage is in the Sermon on the Mount, which deals with relations within the Kingdom of God, not necessarily relations between Kingdom citizens and outsiders.

Bear in mind also that what Jesus is talking about is not physical assault, but insult. Notice that the wording is “if someone strikes you on the right cheek…” For a right-handed person to strike you on the right cheek would have to be a back-hand blow with the right hand, and this is a gesture of insult, not a physical assault. Jesus was saying that if someone insults you by striking you a backhand blow on the right cheek, allow him to insult you again by striking you on the left cheek.

If someone were to assault me because of my stance as a Catholic Christian, I hope I would have the grace to take it without fighting back or trying to protect myself (not that my “fighting back” would be worth very much 😛 ). If someone were to assault me just to be assaulting me, or to try to steal something I have, I might take a different position. And if our society ever got to the point where someone was assaulting my wife, my grand-daughter, or one other of my friends or relatives, I would not be ashamed to introduce the assailant to my friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. (Of course, first I would have to acquire Mssrs Smith and Wesson as friends, first 😛 )

DaveBj
 
**NAB LEV **19:17

"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."


Hello Genesis,

Moses comes down Mt.Sini with God’s commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, love your neighbor as yourself and take no revenge. Then Moses kills 3000 of his countrymen to gain control of a mob which is leading the people away from God. The next day Moses offers up his eternal soul for those who have hated him. Moses is the perfect example of using both deadly force and turning the other cheek out of love for enemies.

Please visit: Throwing Stones www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones2.html

NAB EXO 32:7

But Moses implored the LORD, his God, saying, “Why, O LORD, should your wrath blaze up against your own people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with such great power and with so strong a hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent he brought them out, that he might kill them in the mountains and exterminate them from the face of the earth’? Let your blazing wrath die down; relent in punishing your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, and how you swore to them by your own self, saying, ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky; and all this land that I promised, I will give your descendants as their perpetual heritage.’” So the LORD relented in the punishment he had threatened to inflict on his people.
Moses then turned and came down the mountain with the two tablets that were written on both sides, front and back; tablets that were made by God, having inscriptions on them that were engraved by God himself. When Moses realized that, to the scornful joy of their foes, Aaron had let the people run wild, he stood at the gate of the camp and cried,** “Whoever is for the Lord, let him come to me!” All the Levites then rallied to him, and he told them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip everyone of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!” The Levites carried out the command of Moses, and theat day there fell about three thousand of the people. **Then Moses said, “Today you have been dedicated to the LORD, for you were against your own sons and kinsmen, to bring a blessing upon yourselves this day.”
EXO 32 continued. The Atonement.

On the next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a grave sin. I will go up to the LORD, then; perhaps I may be able to make atonement for your sin." So Moses went back to the LORD and said, **“Ah, this people has indeed committed a grave sin in making a god of gold for themselves! If you would only *forgive ***their sin! If you will not, then strike me out of the book that you have written.”
NAB REV 3:5

"The victor will thus be dressed in white, and** I will never erase his name from the book of life** but will acknowledge his name in the presence of my Father and of his angels.God’s eternal book of those who live eternally. LUK 10:20 REV 13:8 REV 17:8 REV 20:12REV 20:15REV 21:27
**EXO 32 continued. **

The LORD answered, "Him only who has sinned against me will I strike out of my book. Now, go and lead the people whither I have told you. My angel will go before you. When it is time for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin." Thus the LORD smote the people for having had Aaron make the calf for them.
 
To put it simply you should consider what the outcome.

For example, if turning the other cheek will show you as a coward of what you truly believe, then fighting back is the best option. If fighting back will only make things worse and not solve/change anything for the better then turning the other cheek will serve justice.

It may also be necessary to switch “tactics” with the situation; for those times where you’re being kind, but continually pressed. then standing up for yourself would be all right.
 
Ok, when should one turn the other cheek and when should one fight back?

Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, but he also told his desciples to carry a sword.

He let himself be totally brutalized, but He also drove people out of the temple with a whip.

So, when is each response appropriate?

It seems to me that when one is personally under attack, the turning of the cheek is appropriate, but when someone else is under attack, defending them physically is appropriate.

What do you guys think?
T. Thomas Aquinas, STh, II-II, 64,7 corp. art: If a man in self defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another.

CCC: 2264 " Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."

2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. …

See the CCC for more details concerning this topic.
 
T. Thomas Aquinas, STh, II-II, 64,7 corp. art: If a man in self defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another.

CCC: 2264 " Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."

2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. …

See the CCC for more details concerning this topic.
But what if it’s a woman in self defense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top