|
Does “turn the other cheek” mean we should let criminals harm us?
John B. writes:
Even though I agree with you on many things and, as I’ve made clear, enjoy VFR, I am not a Christian—or a theist of any kind. To me, the essence of those you term Eloi is self-abnegation, of the Christian variety—even though it involves no supernatural personages. I detest it, and I see nothing to admire in the efforts of these slaughtered young women putatively to make the world a better place. They were making it a worse place, in which the will to prosper and the very notion of self-respect—i.e., that the energies of one person are not free to be disposed of by another—are constantly in the light of suspicion. These contemptible airheads seem to me to have succeeded wonderfully in turning the other cheek—and having it slashed.
LA replies:
You are free to state at VFR your own lack of belief in God or Christianity, and to make reasonable criticisms of Christianity, but I do not tolerate at VFR expressions of hostility to Christianity. Your equation of those young women’s suicidal recklessness with the Christian religion is a form of idiocy that I, to use your word, detest. Only a bigot against Christianity could believe that Jesus—who told his disciples to be “wise as a serpent,” and “who did not commit himself” unto certain people, “because he knew what was in man”—would command or countenance such irresponsible behavior as carelessly delivering oneself into the hands of murderers. Yes, Jesus delivered himself to be crucified. But that was not a careless or self-agnegating act, it was his job, his supreme mission and accomplishment, carried out for a divine purpose.
If you don’t like my using the tough language I’ve used here on you, then don’t write to me saying that you “detest” Christianity.
You are welcome to recast the comment in a form acceptable at VFR.
John B replies:
Thank you for offering me an opportunity to recast the comment. If your argument is correct, then I would have to withdraw the comment. I was speaking of the self-abnegation Jesus urges upon others. Do you think a woman who is being advised to present her unmarked cheek to someone who has, say, carved a B on the other one is really being advised to be as wise as a serpent? I am not asking rhetorically. I would say she is being advised to act foolishly; and if a man were to urge, say, one of my young nieces to do that, I would consider him a menace.
LA writes:
The distorted comprehension you display of Jesus’ teaching—that it requires a woman to encourage a depraved criminal to disfigure her—is like that of a drunken man in a funhouse hall of mirrors. Or, better, it’s like the view of America held by foreign leftists who know nothing about America except that it’s populated by fat pig capitalists kicking the helpless bodies of poor workers.
If Christianity called for what you think it calls for, then the religion that created Western civilization is a monstrous and inhuman belief system. For you to believe that, would require you to hate the West.
John B. writes:
What I meant was this:
Thank you for the offer to recast the statement in a form acceptable at VFR, but my interest now is simply the point you made. I am not concerned, in other words, that this particular exchange of ours be a VFR posting.
You noted that Jesus advised others to be as wise as serpents—and I am simply asking whether you think such advice is consistent with the exhortation to turn the other cheek. It seems to me that it is not.
LA replies:
Ok, now you’re making reasonable points that can be the basis for a discussion. So let’s look at this further. “Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,” taken literally, means, “When someone attacks you, invite him to attack you further. If someone shoots you in the shoulder, dramatically open your shirt and invite him to shoot you in the chest.” That would be the literal meaning. Since, as I’ve said, that would be monstrous and insane, and since Christians have never taken Jesus to be monstrous and insane, the saying must have some other meaning. What is it? That requires further thought.
We could arrive at the same question another way. The fact that one counsel of Jesus, to turn the other cheek to those who insult or attack you, contradicts another teaching of Jesus, to be as cautious as a serpent when dealing with other men, means that these teachings cannot be taken in a simplistic, literal fashion. They must be looked at in context. Namely, when and in what manner is it appropriate to be wise as a serpent and to refuse to commit oneself to other people? When and in what manner is it appropriate to turn the other cheek? “Turn the other cheek” is not a command to go out and let yourself be abused or killed by highwaymen. It needs to be understood. Most of all, it needs to be understood psychologically. It is counseling a certain inner attitude that a person should have. Further, like everything Jesus says, it assumes the operation of ordinary common sense. It is not counseling insane, destructive, reckless, irresponsible, criminal behavior.
Let’s say that someone says something cutting to you. The normal reaction is to bridle at that, to feel pride and indignation swell up at the injustice that has been done to you. If you remembered Jesus’ teaching at that moment and wanted to practice it, you would inwardly “turn the other cheek,” thinking inwardly (not saying aloud and thus drawing attention to your moral superiority), “Ok, insult me again, I don’t mind.” One is putting one’s normal egoistic response on hold and applying an entirely different principle that transcends the ordinary ego, transforming the situation from one of hurt, anger, confrontation, to one of peace. That would be an example of a proper and helpful application of “turn the other cheek.” But let’s say you’re with your wife on a street and an outlaw assaults you and hits you on the side of the head and knocks you to the ground and starts to attack your wife. Are you to get up and say to the outlaw, “Hey, hit me on the other side of the head, too”? No, you are to protect your wife and yourself from this criminal attack. If Jesus’ teaching required that a person let other people, including the people for whose safety and well being he is most responsible, be harmed or killed by criminals, then Jesus’ teaching would be insane and criminal. Since Church authorities and ordinary Christians throughout the ages (see quotation from Catholic Catechism below) think that Jesus is good, indeed perfectly good, and therefore think that it is absurd to imagine that his teachings are insane and criminal, they logically conclude that his teachings do not require that people let themselves and others be harmed and killed by criminals, but that the teachings are to be applied in a manner consonant with common sense, ordinary morality, the law of society, and so on. In other words, Jesus’ statements are not to be taken literally, i.e., mechanically and without reference to their correct meaning.
Now, the above has been my own, perhaps idiosyncratic, way of responding to your question. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says pretty much the same thing. Immediately following the section in which it references Jesus’ comment to his disciples to turn the other cheek, the Catechism says:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… . The one is intended, the other is not.”65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. [Emphasis added.] 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:
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’s.
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. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
- end of initial entry -
Terry Morris writes:
I suppose John B. would have it that all of Christ’s admonitions to his disciples are to be followed to the exact letter, including every jot and every tittle. But if we did so we would quite literally be without body parts and limbs; we wouldn’t have eyes to see [“if one eye offends thee, take out the other,” etc.] and ears to hear, nor clothing with which to cover our limbless nakedness. One wonders why the original disciples didn’t adhere strictly to the letter of Christ’s teachings.
Harry B. writes:
LA wrote:
So let’s look at this further. “Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,” taken literally, means, “When someone attacks you, invite him to attack you further. If someone shoots you in the shoulder, dramatically open your shirt and invite him to shoot you in the chest.” That would be the literal meaning. Since, as I’ve said, that would be monstrous and insane, and since Christians have never taken Jesus to be monstrous and insane, the saying must have some other meaning. What is it? That requires further thought.
The full quote of Jesus is revealing: “But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Revised Standard Version.) Jesus hereby forbids self-defence and defence of others (since to defend others from attack, you would have to make their enemies yours). First, he states the ironclad rule, “Do not resist one who is evil!” Then he gives a practical example of how the rule may be applied: “If anyone strikes you once, let him do so again!” (and again, until he stops). Stated another way: Jesus instructed his followers never to fight off attackers. Meanwhile, he is telling his followers to get engaged in the world, spreading the word and warning unbelievers—acts he starkly predicts will attract violence against them “unto the end” (in death, if need be). Jesus would not have his followers identified with the Messianic activists and anti-Roman terrorists of his day. It follows that his followers could not in good conscience become tax collectors (agents serving imperial Rome) or soldiers.
Of course, imperial Rome eventually adapted Christian tradition to its own concepts, creating for us much of our “traditionalist conservatism.” These ideas make the unvarnished Jesus seem strange.
LA replies:
I understand your point up through where you say Jesus was commanding total pacifism, but I’m not sure of your meaning toward the end of your comment.
Paul K. writes:
Your reader John B. misinterprets the meaning of “Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,” because he’s assuming that it refers to an act of violence rather than a gesture of contempt. In honor cultures, as Mediterranean societies have been for millennia, a slap to the face is a demeaning gesture, meant to put someone in his place rather than threaten his life. As the cult of honor spread from Spain and Italy through the rest of Europe, the French refined this insult until it consisted of lightly drawing the fingertips of a glove across the cheek of an opponent; to strike an actual blow would be considered déclassé.
I found this examination of Jesus’ admonition in Walter Wink’s “The Powers That Be,” p. 101-2:
You are probably imaging a blow with the right fist. But such a blow would fall on the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could only be used for unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus’ day, to gesture with the left hand meant exclusions from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you hit the other’s right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will know: the only feasible blow is a backhand.
The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place.
[Jesus] is saying to them, “Refuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek.” By turning the cheek, the servant make it impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. …The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists …and the last thing the master wishes to do is establish the underling’s equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in the relationship.
Wink’s last point sounds a little over-the-top to me. It is my interpretation that Jesus is simply saying that one should brush off blows to one’s pride. He is not suggesting we brush off threats to our lives.
LA replies:
Wink’s theory, especially near the end, seems like example of the human intellect spinning theories with no connection to the underlying facts and context, in this case, the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is teaching the very opposite of anger, defiance, conflict.
Charles T. writes:
LA wrote: “We could arrive at the same question another way. The fact that one counsel of Jesus, to turn the other cheek to those who insult or attack you, contradicts another teaching of Jesus, to be as cautious as a serpent when dealing with other men, means that these teachings cannot be taken in a simplistic, literal fashion. They must be looked at in context. ”
Exactly.
This same Jesus, the one who said to turn the other cheek, the one who was so fond of children and the downtrodden, also took a whip and drove the dishonest moneychangers from the temple. I doubt that he asked them nicely to leave. He turned over tables. Probably left some welts on various backsides as well. He did not back down in verbal combat with the Pharisees. In fact, he grievously and intentionally insulted them.
Initially, at first reading, his teachings do seem contradictory. However, studying his teachings in context, i.e., how he behaved when in contact with different groups of people is the key not only to understanding his teaching, but in applying it in everyday life. I also agree with your term “common sense understanding” of the teaching. Applying these teachings does require common sense. It requires that we use our minds. We also need to recognize that Jesus frequently used hyperbole to emphasize the seriousness of a point. In light of his teaching and subsequent behavior, I had to conclude that: (1) turning the other cheek was to be our basic behavior when dealing with our friends, families, fellow citizens, and (2) there are times when the issues are so serious that verbal and/or physical violence is absolutely necessary. The two situations do not necessarily contradict each other as some would like to teach. [LA replies: Yes.]
The perversion of “turning the other cheek” has led to emotional, and sometimes physical abuse for Christians. Even worse, the perverted form of this teaching is promoted and lauded in many evangelical circles.
Patrick H. writes:
I read with interest your exchange with John B. about “turning the other cheek.” There is an interpretation of cheek turning to mean something neither meek nor self-abnegating, and it turns on the fact that Jesus stated that turning the other cheek followed someone striking you on your right cheek.
In Palestine at the time, most people were, as today, right-handed. To strike someone on the right cheek would require a person using his right hand to perform a backhand slap. Now backhand slaps are not particularly dangerous physically—strike too hard and you’ll just break your hand, perhaps even without damaging the victim—so they were not used that way in ancient Palestine, any more than they are today. They were instead an insult, an act of social dominance, the reduction of the victim to the status of a social inferior. The backhand “cuff” was used to make people get out of your way, or to reprimand them for some kind of social infraction, and was never used by an inferior on a superior. It was understood as an insult, not an assault.
But not so for a forehand slap. A forehand slap can really hurt, even damage the victim. The forehand slap, which from a right-handed person would land on the left cheek, was simple assault, and could be responded to.
So Jesus was not saying, Eloi-like, to allow people to attack you physically. He specified the right cheek, which meant that he was talking about someone cuffing you backhand, which is to say, degrading you, insulting you, putting you in your place.
To turn the other cheek meant to present your left cheek to your insulter, with the demand (unstated) that the insulter slap you on that cheek. But that would be a direct act of assault. The victim of the backhand cuff is saying to his attacker, “This is the logic of your attitude to me. You think you can backhand me. Well then, go ahead and give it to me forehand. Go ahead and show the violence of your whole relationship to me.”
You can almost see the “victim” stepping in front of the insulter, and saying, “Go ahead, slap-happy. You cuffed me like I’m an inferior. Now you’re going to have to hit me … like I’m an equal. So sock it to me … right here!” The victim in Jesus’ story is not an Eloi: he is a man of justice asserting his equality to the man who thinks himself better.
The advice of Jesus, far from being pacifistic, underlies the inherently democratic (we are all equal) nature of his message.
Similarly for the cloak. “Hey there mister thief! You can take one robe? You can just grab it? You think you’re not just some thief because you leave me my other robe? Well Mister Thief Man, take my other robe too. TAKE IT.”
Jesus is demanding that victimizers who rationalize their theft and violence be confronted with the logic of their position and not allowed to rationalize their crimes. It’s a hard demand of victims who may be living in an unjust or tyrannical society, and requires great courage and will to put into effect.
It’s not pacifism. Not at all.
LA replies:
I find Patrick’s variation of the Wink theory more plausible as it leads up to an assertion of equality or an exposure of the violent nature of the slapper’s act. But it still seems to me that it does not fit with the surrounding context of the Sermon on the Mount.
October 27
Michael S. writes;
Please elaborate.
LA replies:
The Wink interpretation says Jesus is counseling defiance, a notion absurdly at odds with the peaceful teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. Patrick’s interpretation is also different from the general drift of the Sermon, but it is not 180 degrees in opposition to it, as Wink’s is. Exposing the violent nature of the slapper’s act by passively offering one’s face to be slapped again is a plausible interpretation, though I still think it is incorrect, because Jesus’ focus here is solely on transcending one’s normal egoistic impulses, and thus on removing violence, anger, egotism from oneself when one is insulted, not on wiseguyishly (or passively aggressively) making a point about the person who committed the insult.
Kevin S. writes:
As you indicate, the Wink theory and even the Patrick H. expansion upon it seem too humanized/philosophized. Quite simply Our Lord instructs us that if smitten on the cheek we are to turn the other one and be prepared for another slap. As you and others have pointed out, this basically means, “Don’t sweat the little stuff; just let it go,” as in insults and the like. Jesus also instructs us to give also our cloak to one who has just stolen our coat and to go two miles with one who compels us to go one. However, and this is important, He does NOT teach us to give ALL our clothes or means to the robber. He does NOT teach to go several miles with those who unjustly force us to go one mile with them. He does NOT teach that if our right arm is cut off by an assailant we are to turn to them the left arm. These are all sides of the same coin and it does not take a lot of deep interpretation to figure it out. We must be willing to “apply grease to the friction prone wheels of social interaction” present in almost all communities. At the same time there are limits to what a Christian is expected to bear. Loss of life or agency, be it our own or those over whom we have charge, are beyond that limit.
LA replies:
And again, context is all important. I think the context of these behaviors is the ordinary relationships of life, with family, friends, neighbors (or, perhaps, more a restrictive interpretation, with one’s fellow disciples); he is not talking about how to deal with criminals and enemies. Though even in the latter case it might apply as to one’s inner feelings as distinct from one’s outer actions, e.g., you may have to use force against a dangerous person, but you are still not to hate him.
Patrick H. writes:
I haven’t checked the post any further, so forgive me if this repeats what others may have added. Here’s Wikipedia (I know! I know! But bear with me.) on the issue at hand, to wit, the compatibility of the interpretation I’ve offered (not just mine of course) and the Sermon in general:
A figurative interpretation relies on historical and other factors. At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one’s cloak in addition to one’s tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:…
Note further in the article a reference to “walk with him two miles”, which again is an instance of Jesus using peculiarly specific language to make a specific point. He is proposing “a method for making the oppressor break the law.” He was putting oppressors on the horns of a dilemma, not counseling violence like the Zealots, nor pacifistic resignation, like the Eloi of today. He was, in the opinions of many at the time, talking a very dangerous game.
And we know where that led him.
LA replies:
This seems awfully complicated to me. I can picture the disciples getting together after the Sermon on the Mount and in great puzzlement trying to figure out what Jesus meant:
“Ok, you stand there, and I’ll pretend to slap you.”
“No, no, not with the palm of your hand, you fool, with the back of your hand.”
“Why can’t I hit you with the palm of my hand”?
“Because we’re working class men from Galilee, no one who matters is going to hit us with the palm of his hand and make us his equal.”
“Ok, I’ve hit your right cheek with the back of my right hand. Now you turn your left cheek toward me, and I’ll hit it with the back of my left hand.”
“Not the left hand you idiot, no one does that!”
“Ok, but then how can I hit you on the left cheek?”
“You don’t, that’s the whole idea. This whole thing is about faking out our enemies.”
It would be like a Monty Python sketch.
Seriously, the Wikipedia explanation is too complicated to believe that it’s what Jesus intended. He was making a simple point about not responding in anger when someone offends your amour propre. The interpretation in Wikipedia reads like a typical example of modern scholars with no interest in or understanding of Christianity getting carried away with themselves. Also, is it really possible to know all these subtle things about the significance of right-handed palm slaps, left-handed palm slaps, right-handed back-of-hand slaps, and left-handed back-of-hand slaps in first century Judea? Jesus was showing the disciples a different way of living and interacting with other people compatible with life in Christ, not giving them brain twisters or teaching them how to get the better of upper class bullies.
Patrick H. writes:
Blessed are the cheesemakers!
I won’t belabour the point, but your characterization of the interpretation of the teaching as meaning that Jesus was counseling people on how to stand up to bullies is a bit unfair. He was describing how to stand up to oppressors, thieves and slavemasters—anyone who would demand as their own your body, your possessions, your subordination. [LA replies: But I was responding to the point about upper class people using a back handed slap against lower class people.]
The people who backhanded you in first-century Judea weren’t playground bullies. They were the equivalent of the Soviets in Eastern Europe or their Stasi East German police enforcers. When you consider the verbal wars Jesus engaged in with Zealots and Pharisees, not schoolmasters or the Galilean PTA, it’s quite clear he was delineating a way different from either violence or accommodation. And he was talking, not about bullies, but tyrants. And everybody knew exactly what he meant. [LA replies: how do you know that?]
The same method was used by Christians in the arena when they cast down their weapons and refused to fight. They would not give their murderers the satisfaction of seeing them cooperate with the pretense of the arena, the lie the Romans told themselves to convince themselves that they, the Romans, were being good sports about it all, the lie of course being that the Christian out there on the blood-soaked sands had any real chance of winning. They cast down their swords and let the animals devour them. “For they know not what they do.”
Like Jesus, they went to their deaths, not as pacifists or zealots, but as men of Truth.
LA replies:
Speaking of my unfairness, what about my Monty Python skit?
Patrick H. replies:
It was very funny! Hence my reference to Life of Brian’s Sermon on the Mount. It would have fit in very well in that scene. :-) In fact, I suspected you had that scene in mind when you wrote the skit. I can almost hear the English accents: “You don’t, that’s the whole idea. This whole thing is about faking out our enemies.” (John Cleese would be the one saying that.)
Who was it who said you weren’t funny? Yours is a dry humor, as befits a traditionalist, with even a tinge of blackness to it, but you’re definitely a funny guy.
Of course, the fact that you chose to exercise your wit at my expense is perhaps unfortunate. At least from my perspective. :-)
Parenthetically, a conservative Christian blogger named Orrin Judd, a very interesting and unusual thinker, has argued for years that all genuine humour is conservative. I wonder if he’s right. [LA replies: I think there’s something to that, though it would take some thinking to figure out why. I think it has something to do with the fact that humorists are always referring to and feeding off of basic realities of human life. Unlike liberals, they don’t deny those realities.]
And lastly, everyone knew exactly what Jesus meant, because everyone knew the Jewish law, the source of the dilemma upon the horns of which Jesus was seeking to impale his opponents.
“Blessed are the Greek? Hey, you hit me with your left hand! Unclean! Unclean!” [That would have been Michael Palin, I think.]
You’ve got a script in there somewhere, Lawrence.
LA replies:
I have to admit with embarrassment that I didn’t recognize the “cheesemakers” line as being from Life of Bryan. I was never a fan of Monty Python.
You write:
“Of course, the fact that you chose to exercise your wit at my expense is perhaps unfortunate. At least from my perspective. :-)”
Talk about a dry wit.
October 28
Paul K. writes:
I don’t mean to smite a dead horse, on the right cheek or anywhere else, but where does Patrick H. get the idea that hitting a man with your fist makes him your equal? It is true that under traditional codes of honor, you recognize an opponent’s equality by agreeing to duel with him, as you are putting your life at equal risk with his. However, hitting an inferior, whether with an open hand, a fist, or a stick is all the same; what defines his inferiority is the fact that he is not allowed to strike back.
Patrick H. writes:
It’s not being struck that makes you equal in the eyes of the law. It is that a crime under the law has been committed, and you and the oppressor are equally entitled to the protection and equally responsible for your actions under the law. Turning the cheek required the striker of the blow, in order to enforce his act of subordination, to escalate his action into a direct violation of Jewish law, just as leaving someone naked (the two cloaks) or requiring them to walk more than one mile (walk two miles) was against the law. Hence the specificity of Jesus’ examples. Everyone who knew the law, knew what he meant when he said, turn the other cheek, walk two miles with him, etc.
The striker of the blow doesn’t assert or prove the equality of his victim by hitting him. That’s obviously absurd. He brings himself under the purview of the law by committing a crime, and it is the law that asserts the equality of the criminal and the victim.
October 29
[picking up on an earlier exchange between LA and Harry B. in this thread.]
LA wrote:
I understand your point up through where you say Jesus was commanding total pacifism, but I’m not sure of your meaning toward the end of your comment.
Harry writes:
Traditionalist conservatism owes to Augustine a very great debt, because in the service of Rome he saved Christianity from pacifism by explaining away Matthew 5:39 for his colleagues. But the strange focus of error remains enshrined for the common man as sacred Scripture—very close to front of the book and usually in red letters.
LA wrote:
Interesting, but I’m not familiar with that. How did he explain Matthew 5:39? (“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”)
Harry B. replies:
Augustine’s arguments may not be as convincing to us as to his colleagues, but they established precedents that enabled Christianity to thrive within the Western legal tradition. Some of his points:
1. Rephrases Matthew 5:39 in legal terms regarding vengeance: “[The Law says] Thou shall not take unjust revenge; but I say, Take no revenge at all” (Reply to Faustus, 19) He finds this paraphrasing plausible because it would be parallel with the declaration regarding oaths (“[The Law says] You shall not swear falsely; but I say to you, Do not swear at all”). Nothing would be new in Jesus forbidding vengeance to private individuals, because it was already forbidden under the law. (Leviticus 19:18)
2. Asserts there is no evil “in the exercise of duly and lawfully constituted authority.” (Answer to Petillian the Donatist, ii.19) Argues that Jesus was merely restricting individuals from usurping magistrates, in whom the community responsibility for law and order resides. When a man takes measures to prevent crimes against his person, by arming himself and building walls, he is only serving the good of the community. When a man patiently bears with unfair blows, he is serving not only God from within, but avoiding the risk of returning undue harm to others. (Note: In reaching the same conclusion, Plato also employs this argument; re: Crito 10, Gorgias 486, and Republic i.335E.)
3. Declares military service to be service of God. Argues he is already living during the reign of Christ on earth, in which “All kings of the earth shall bow to Him, all nations shall serve Him.” Hence, imperial Rome was Christ’s tool in bringing peace to the world. “We have seen Christian emperors, who have put all their confidence in Christ, gaining splendid victories over ungodly enemies, whose hope was in the rites of idolatry and devil-worship.” (Reply to Faustus, 22)
4. Dismisses various technical arguments (for example about which hand is slapping which cheek) as unnecessary and sometimes difficult to assess. Notes that Matthew but not Luke says ‘slap,’ and Luke doesn’t mention the right cheek.
LA replies:
At least I understand point number 4. :-) The others will take more work.
Seriously, I get the general drift.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 26, 2008 01:32 PM | Send
|