"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow."
--NAB Matthew 5:38-42
Most of us are familiar with the "turn the other cheek" statement. But does any of us truly understand what this means? The way I always interpreted it, and probably the way most people do, was that Jesus was telling us to be subordinate and not stand up for ourselves. Well, this isn't exactly true. Taking into account the context of the time, you might say that Jesus was the original proponent of nonviolent resistance.
Back in the days of Jesus, most people in that region were right-handed, or at least used their right hand for most tasks. The left hand was used almost exclusively for "bathroom duties." When a superior or some other antagonist set out to punish someone else, it would almost always take the form of a slap. And this was no ordinary slap; this was a back-handed slap on the face. Since people were right-handed and the left hand was only used for one purpose, the only way to slap someone with the back of the hand was to slap them across the right cheek. This was seen as the ultimate punishment to put someone "in their place."
For Jesus to say "turn the other cheek" was more controversial than it seems. If a person were to turn their left cheek to their superior, the superior would be unable to back-hand slap him with the right hand. Instead he would have to slap the subordinate with the palm of the hand. This, instead of signifying putting someone in his place, would signify that the subordinate was instead an equal. Equals slap each other with the palm of the hand. For a subordinate to turn his left cheek to the superior was seen as the ultimate insult, and the ultimate way to stand up for oneself without using violence. So, you see, Jesus was much more revolutionary than we sometimes give Him credit.
This was just one section of Matthew's Gospel that was recently explained to me in my Christian Scriptures class. I must say, this is all very interesting to me, since I have been hearing some of these stories all my life. I am now getting a better explanation about what they mean, and just how much we can benefit from learning the Scriptures in their original context. What a beautiful thing! In case you are still curious about the rest of this passage, I will give my explanation of the cloak part and the "walk two miles" part soon. And I will continue to share my new-found knowledge of these things for the rest of the semester, so look out!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It all sounded good until the phrase "stand up for oneself" and then you lost me. Standing up for oneself at such a time is a show of disdain that can only infuriate the slapper. Why would Jesus want to further infuriate another person?
Well, Jesus' message at the time was that every person deserves dignity and respect, and that all people were equal. This went against the popular belief of the time that certain people were more entitled or superior to others. By standing up for oneself, one can show others that he is just as much a person as anyone else. Sure, that will make some people angry, but if you'll recall Jesus made a lot of people angry back in the day.
I don't recall a lot of (or any) scriptures where Jesus was getting slapped around...until the end, that is.
No, he was telling OTHERs to stand up for THEMSELVES. Jesus wasn't infuriating another person. He was telling OTHERS to do it.
This is The Gospel according to Tim. Praise be to God.
:-)
Therein lies a lot of the problems in our world.
Everyone's interpretation of the same words are different.
Whether it be the bible or just the simple conversation between two people.
Sean,
The major thrust of the message Jesus gave is for us to love one another. It was not that we should make people angry. Yes, he made the pharises and scribes angry because he said they concentrated on the wrong things; so they had him killed. We treat other persons with dignity and respect because we are all equal in God's eyes and not because "we are all equal."
I am not bothered at all when I meet somebody who is superior to me. It might be in intellect, beauty, education, strength, talent, etc. I am pleased to meet and converse with them and when I do so I am enriched.
Standing up for oneself, in your sense, is an invitation to confrontation and, in my judgement, that is not showing love for that person.
Well this all goes back to the context of the time. Matthew's faith community was that of Christian Jews that were being severely oppressed, both by traditional Jews and the Romans. Matthew included this passage in his Gospel because of that oppression his community felt. Is anyone really promoting violence or aggression here? No. Jesus certainly wouldn't promote humiliating another person. But this story was included to give hope and inspiration to the persecuted people in Matthew's community.
In this story, when I said superior, I was in fact referring to one of these traditional Jews or Romans that were persecuting the Christian Jews. At the time, the traditional Jews and the Romans, who by the way were occupying the area at the time, thought that the Christian Jews were sub-human. When Jesus says these things in the "Sermon on the Mount," he is asserting the dignity of all persons, and the equality Grandpa suggested "in the eyes of God." So making people angry or feeling humiliated was not the purpose of this speech. It was to influence Matthew's community to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, a man who believed that these people were actually people, and were just as much people as their oppressors. What a joy they must have felt to realize that after years of oppression!
It greatly pleased me to read this post and additionally pleased me to see you defend what you learned. I am still looking forward to the additional material that was promised.
This blog prompted me to reread Matthew's Gospel. It is never too late to read such important liturature.
Grandpa, I'm glad this discussion prompted you to reread the Gospel. I appologize for not finishing up my explanation/discussion on the rest of the passage. I promise that I will do that soon; I will have some time to do so either this weekend or the beginning of next week. I'm glad that you have taken an interest in such things, and I'm glad to share my newly-found knowledge.
Post a Comment