When Jesus says turn the other cheek

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JoyToBeCatholic said:
Should we not, in imitation of our Lord, be defenseless? There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another. In resisting violence of any kind, we are trying to win the love of the one threatening to do harm. Reacting with violence is not a witness and is not in imitation of our Lord.

I don’t know that I oppose war in the sense that God permits it, but I don’t see how a Christian is justified in participation in acts that directly cause the death of another.
Click to expand...
To protect others yes. But just to sit and let them kill you is a form of suicide in my opinion. Passive suicide but suicide non the less.
 
I joined the USMC right after high school knowing that I would be going to war.

I joined NOT because I wanted to go kill my enemies, but I wanted to go so I could protect my brothers and sisters who are putting thier lives on the line for our country.
 
TDiGaetano said:
I joined the USMC right after high school knowing that I would be going to war.

I joined NOT because I wanted to go kill my enemies, but I wanted to go so I could protect my brothers and sisters who are putting thier lives on the line for our country.
Click to expand...
👍 Thank you for helping to keep us all safe. 👍
 
Turning the other cheek is about being treated as an equal, not pacifism. This has nothing to do with war. Too many people like to speak of Jesus “meek and mild” and forget Jesus is God incarnate, the same God that flooded the earth and leveled Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple. People angered him. He is not a door mat, nor did he encourage us to be. We are His children and should treat each other with respect as equals.
 
Luke 19:27 – Jesus says “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.” He is teaching that not all killing is intrinsically evil.

Peace,

Ryan 🙂
 
I used to be a complete pasifist until i read up on Church teachings, and began to get a grasp of them.

As someone already said, a slap in the face was not an act of violence, but an act of insult.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not react violently against someone who is evil. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Click to expand...
After reading this passage, read the atached article. It is brilliant! Very enlightening and informative.

Turning the other cheek: what did Jesus really mean?
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top