"Turning the other cheek"

  • Thread starter Thread starter DylanO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DylanO

Guest
Hi,

I’ve been debating a neo-pagan who says “Christianity is for weaklings” and that the Bible teaches “to let others take advantage of you” and “allow yourself to be treated like a doormat”. He doesn’t cite any specific verses but, I know of the one he speaks of. I also know that he is taking these verses out of context but, how do I show that?

Thanks.
 
You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways.

As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and hand no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death.

A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

So, Jesus taught his followers to antogonize the Romans by offering the other side of their face. The natural response would be to strike again - with the back of the hand!

If the citizen yielded to the temptation to strike again with the back of the hand or the closed fist, then he had offered a challenge to fight as an equal. Now the slave (or non-roman) could retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny.

Because he was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.
 
Sir Knight it sounds a bit like the just war theory…thank you for sharing that
 
Interesting take on it, SK. Except that the passage goes on to talk about other things as well, not just the striking.

If I may offer another take - St Paul in Romans 12 and Proverbs 25 (which he is quoting) both in the same vein speak of offering food to your enemy if he is hungry, but they tell us why. ‘In doing so you will heap coals of fire on his head’.

In other words your charitable treatment will make your enemy ashamed of their unjustified anger towards you and just might get them to change their mind about you.
 
LilyM said:
Interesting take on it, SK. Except that the passage goes on to talk about other things as well, not just the striking.

If I may offer another take - St Paul in Romans 12 and Proverbs 25 (which he is quoting) both in the same vein speak of offering food to your enemy if he is hungry, but they tell us why. ‘In doing so you will heap coals of fire on his head’.

In other words your charitable treatment will make your enemy ashamed of their unjustified anger towards you and just might get them to change their mind about you.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. If one were to offer the other cheek and the person did not strike again, they would lose face. If they did strike again with either a fist or the back of the hand, one was free to hit back.

Jesus also advised people, when asked to walk a mile, then to respond by walking a second mile. Roman soldiers could legally require any non-citizen to carry their packs (weighing 60 pounds) for one mile. But there was a very severe penalty for compulsion beyond one mile. A non-citizen who carried a pack a second mile could cause the soldier to be demoted, fined, flogged or even discharged.
 
When you consider what people have suffered to practice their faith, some have died for it, I hardly think they are wimps

It took courage to live in times of persecution…the real wimps are the ones that cave in…You are showing a good deal of backbone yourself by defending your faitih…it’s not an easy job
 
PS: I just wanted to add that we had a retired Monsignor in our church who use to share with us all of these interesting points during his homilies – he was a fountain of information that is greatly missed in our parish.
 
Sir_Knight said:
PS: I just wanted to add that we had a retired Monsignor in our church who use to share with us all of these interesting points during his homilies – he was a fountain of information that is greatly missed in our parish.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t miss him. The principle of turning the other cheek means that we don’t react the way the world does. We love our enemies rather than becoming like them by retaliating and antagonizing them or fighting them. God doesn’t fight with His own creation. Turning the other cheek takes courage and love which are two sides of the same coin. Christians will die for their faith but never kill for it and Jesus laid down His life like a lamb to be slaughtered, the righteous dying for the unrighteous, forgiving them for not knowing what they’re doing, loving to the end. “Getting back” at someone is not the Spirit of God.

From the CCC:
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
 
fhansen said:
I wouldn’t miss him. The principle of turning the other cheek means that we don’t react the way the world does. We love our enemies rather than becoming like them by retaliating and antagonizing them or fighting them. God doesn’t fight with His own creation. Turning the other cheek takes courage and love which are two sides of the same coin. Christians will die for their faith but never kill for it and Jesus laid down His life like a lamb to be slaughtered, the righteous dying for the unrighteous, forgiving them for not knowing what they’re doing, loving to the end. “Getting back” at someone is not the Spirit of God.

From the CCC:
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
Click to expand...
This has been discussed on these forums before.

Jesus laid down His life on the cross in order to save us from the fires of hell which is also the reason why He told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

Recall that earlier Christ commanded His followers to go out and purchase a sword if they did not have one – even if they had to sell their outer cloak in order to buy one (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27).

Jesus, who was a strong supporter of the poor, would not have instructed His followers to buy something if it was not intended to be used and a sword has only one purpose – to be used as a weapon … either offensively or defensively.

A plain reading of Luke 22:36-38 indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a gun is today.

EDITTED TO ADD: fhansen, If your understanding of this is correct, then the Popes have failed to grasp this same message or they have chosen to intentional ignore this important teaching of Christ because all of them have and have had armed guards protecting their lives who are ready & able to shoot and kill others who may pose a threat to the Pope’s life or safety.
 
Sir_Knight said:
You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways.

As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and hand no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death.

A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

So, Jesus taught his followers to antogonize the Romans by offering the other side of their face. The natural response would be to strike again - with the back of the hand!

If the citizen yielded to the temptation to strike again with the back of the hand or the closed fist, then he had offered a challenge to fight as an equal. Now the slave (or non-roman) could retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny.

Because he was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.
Click to expand...
Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Can anyone give the basis or “pedigree” for this “aggressive” interpretation of “turn the other cheek?” What are the sources for the purported “rules of engagement” for the Roman occupation of Palestine? How recently devised is this “interpretation?”

The article cited in post no. 26 is by a Methodist “Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation.” If this is the source of what seems an “innovative” interpretation, it seems to merit caution.

Also, can anyone make an attempt to harmonize the middle example from the Sermon on the Mount with this “aggressive” interpretation of “turning the other cheek” and “going the extra mile?” The middle example is, “If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well,”(Matthew (NAB) 5:40).

I agree that the Church distinguishes between defense of self and defense of others in one’s charge. I also agree that self-defense is a moral option, though perhaps not the most meritorious response to personal attack. I would suggest that Jesus advised the Apostles to purchase swords (Luke 22:36), precisely because they were taking up their roles as bishops responsible for others – since the Passion was about to begin – and that this was in direct contrast to their being sent out as individual preachers, when they were told to take nothing with them (see, Matthew 10:9-10).

However, this “clever” interpretation that makes “turning the other cheek” into a legal trick designed to aggressively engage the Roman occupation seems to me misdirected, too convenient to modern aggression, and naïve regarding the subtlety of distinctions likely to be made when Roman’s encountered individual Jews in occupied Palestine.

So, please provide citations and history to substantiate a claim that this “interpretation” is consistent with the tradition of the Church.

Any help will be appreciated.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
It isn’t a legal “trick”. Jesus was giving practical advise. Remember, the old law said an eye for an eye and Jesus said many times that He did not come to condemn the old law but to fulfill it.

And as far as the Apostles needing swords because they were bishops of the church, doesn’t Christianity teach that all life is precious? Is this to imply that a church leader can defend someone from aggression but that people themselves are not to protect themselves?
 
DylanO said:
Hi,

I’ve been debating a neo-pagan who says “Christianity is for weaklings” and that the Bible teaches “to let others take advantage of you” and “allow yourself to be treated like a doormat”. He doesn’t cite any specific verses but, I know of the one he speaks of. I also know that he is taking these verses out of context but, how do I show that?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Humility is a good thing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top