|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Matt 5: 38 - 40 - not to oppose evil
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
Little bit stuck here. Here's the text in full:
NIV: 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him take your cloak as well."
Greek literal: 38 "Ye heard that it was said: An eye instead of an eye and a tooth instead of a tooth. 39 But I tell you not to oppose evil; but who thee strikes on the right cheek of thee, turn to him also the other; 40 and to the [one] wishing thee to judge and the tunic of thee to take, allow him also the [outer] garment;"
If it's the message that's important here, and not the literal words (as long as I don't wear tunics I'm ok eh?) then it seems to me Jesus is saying where evil attacks you, or injustice is commited against you, don't offer any resistance or opposition, instead give them the oppurtunity to add to your suffering.
But how can that be applied in a social context? If my friend is attacked, instead of defending him should I offer another as a target as well? If I see the poor being oppressed, instead of standing up for them shall I offer them assitance?
If so, why Jubilee 2000? Why bother listening to Christian Aid? Why should anyone campaign against injustice and oppression, if we should not resist or oppose evil?
Confused.
...Lev
[ 19. June 2003, 18:03: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Context, context!
When an eye is taken for an eye, a life for a life, the victim is seen to be getting his recompense. People are aggrieved, are they not, when they think a court has "let off" a perpetrator of a crime against them.
What Jesus is saying, methinks, is that we are not to be constantly seeking to assert our rights, but rather to seek reconciliation. This is clearer in context with some of His other teachings - the unforgiving servant springs to mind.
Which makes me think - is there more theological "meat" behind Jesus' words at His crucifixion ("father forgive them") than mere example? Is Jesus obtaining redemption by voluntarily giving up any right to recompense against His enemies?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
If you include the next couple of verses in the passage, you'll see that all the examples Jesus gives are about someone doing wrong to you (or just making great demands on you) personally as an individual.
So, while it may still be hard to decide how we put this into practice, I think we can safely it has nothing to do with defending other people from evil and fighting evil in general, but only with resisting those who do wrong to you personally.
Jesus himself offered no resistance when he was beaten by soldiers, but when he saw the Gentile Court in the temple being turned into a rip-off shop, you wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of that whip.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
Then St Paul was quick to assert his rights as a Roman Citizen. Did he not know about these sayings of Jesus? Or is it OK to stand up for one's rights if they further the kingdom of God?
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
Thanks for your comments Karl, Steve and Astro,
Steve, I understand your point about it being very personal instruction, but can the principle also be taken into a personal social context, say a family or community, rather than just as an individual? Ghandi seemed to think so, and early Christians seemed not respond to injustice committed against their communities en mass.
It seems to me that Jesus (and perhaps Karl?) are saying that we have no right to assert justice or our rights for ourselves. Which ties into Astro's point and invites the wider question, do we have rights? I guess a theological tangent could run along the lines of giving up our rights when we enter the kingdom of God, relying on God to protect them, instead of ourselves.
What say yea all?
...Lev
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lev:
It seems to me that Jesus (and perhaps Karl?) are saying that we have no right to assert justice or our rights for ourselves. Which ties into Astro's point and invites the wider question, do we have rights? I guess a theological tangent could run along the lines of giving up our rights when we enter the kingdom of God, relying on God to protect them, instead of ourselves.
I don't think Jesus suggested that God would "protect" anyone when they turned the other cheek. (not in any physical sense). In fact, thousands of Christians went to their deaths in the early period as they put Jesus' teaching into practice.
Regarding Astro's point about Paul, I would see this, not as preventing us from using sensible means of protection, but rather forbidding us to retaliate or seek revenge (which Paul did not).
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanuensis:
I don't think Jesus suggested that God would "protect" anyone when they turned the other cheek. (not in any physical sense). In fact, thousands of Christians went to their deaths in the early period as they put Jesus' teaching into practice.
Thanks for the comments Amanuensis, and apologies for keeping alive my own tangent, but I'd like to respond.
I think David's Psalms promoted God's protecting powers, both from temptation and in the physcial sense. Jesus' teachings relect this when he instructs us to ask God to "deliver us from evil". And whilst Jesus never promised absolute physical protection, he did teach his disciples to beleive in God protecting powers as seen in the tempest on the sea Galilee Matt 8:25 - 26 NIV 'The disciples went and woke him, saying "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!" He replied, "you of little faith, why are you so afriad?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.' and the commissioning of the 72 in Luke 10:19: NIV 'I have given you authorioty to trample on snakes and scorpians and to overcome the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.'
So whilst I agree that there is no garuantee of absolute physical protection (Stephen and James' sticky ends were recorded in Acts), the Bible suggests that there should be some faith in God's physically saving powers.
Peter (liberated from jail (and certain death) by angels) and Paul (survival of deadly snake bite, and classic implementation of Matt 5:38-40 liberated from Jail by earthquake, but remained in captivity until being "officially released" saving the jailers life (Acts 16 25-36)) discovered this power in their ministry.
...Lev
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
Point taken and I agree with pretty much all of that. But that includes the bit about 'no absolute guarantee of protection'. (very complicated). I would still say that the "trun the other cheek and similar sayings in the sermon on the Mount and elsewhere have no promise of physical protection attached to them.
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iain67
Apprentice
# 1583
|
Posted
I think Gandhi and MArtin Luther King show us how this passage is to be applied: challenging evil by showing it for what it is rather than overcoming evil with evil.
It was illegal for someone to take another person's cloak as security for a loan / debt; if you let them have it, you were showing they had no consideration for another person's well being
A Roman soldier could force someone to carry their pack for one mile, but no further; going two miles would get them in trouble
More complicated: in Middle Eastern cultures, the left hand was used only for toilet matters. So striking someone on the right cheek is a slap with the back of the hand rather than a full physical knockout blow. Offering the other cheek may mean challenging someone not just to put you down or insult you and demean you , but a way of saying 'do you really feel that way towards me? If so, beat the crap out of me! If not, don't insult me'
Sounds like someone riding on the 'wrong' seat of a segregated bus - an evil is being done, someone challenges that by highlighting how stupid and wrong the law is and the attitude behind that law; 'if you really believe that I don't deserve a seat on the bus, throw me off, beat me up- let the world see how appalling your attitude is, let them see the evil, and don't just do something unthinking, copying the behaviour of the people round about you '
I know all this sounds very 'convenient', but I think it does make sense and fits in. It doesn't solve all the difficult questions of how to apply this passage, but it does give us insight as to what might lie behind Jesus words
Posts: 13 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
well Jesus was hardly a doormat was he? and he hardly refused to help anyone. Maybe it does just mean (as has already been pointed out) that we should not try and seek revenge but also, I think that we are entitled to try to stop people hurting us if we can without ourselves sinning. For the Christian martyrs (and it wasn't just in the early church..........) too deny Jesus would have saved thier lives (maybe!?!?) but it would have been a sin. Ok, an understandable and forgivable sin that I would probably commit myself - but a sin nevertheless.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Like anything else Jesus said, there can be several meanings. In many societies individuals and clans take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in the form of proportionate revenge. From what I have read this occurred in Jesus' day as well. A direct reading of the passage is that people and families should refrain from revenge as a method of obtaining justice. Jesus does not take the next step, as Bentham did with his social contract philosophy, and say that society should take over that role. That may mean Jesus was not addressing societal, or governmental, redress of wrongs. It may not.
Another reading is that by giving in you tend to preserve your own personal safety. Go ask a police officer if you should struggle with an armed robber or just give them what they want.
There was a show on TV not too long ago that attempted to find the "real" Jesus by using modern investigative reporting methods. In that show it was hypothesized that turning the other cheek was a way to insult the attacker. It was attributed to social custom current in Jesus' time. Ignoring people who are attacking you may well make them believe what they are doing is not important to you.
Jesus may also have been speaking about one's own inner peace. If you let someone make you mad you let them win. If you treat it as their problem and get on with your life you are better off for it.
I tend to buy into every explanation other than the insult one.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Jesus does not take the next step, as Bentham did with his social contract philosophy, and say that society should take over that role. That may mean Jesus was not addressing societal, or governmental, redress of wrongs. It may not.
I don't think Jesus ever addressed societal or governmental issues. There were very few among his listeners who were in any position to influence government decisions. I think that Jesus was teaching individuals how to live a godly life.
If he had ever found himself addressing a group of people who controlled government, I'm sure he would have had things to say to them, but this never happened.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I agree largely with iain67. "resist ye not evil" is about realising that we only perpetuate violence, hatred and all other things which feed the ego when we always demand justice. I think it was also His way of telling us that God will be as merciful to us as we are to others. When He said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" He was demanding a total reconciliation between Himself and the whole evil world.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
