My brother-in-law, Noah, has a very interesting response to Joanna’s comment on Dear Anonymous. In that comment Joanna suggested that as a follower of Jesus Christ, I should be willing to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, and take down my unsightly laundry from where I am storing it on my balcony. So enjoy this twist on an old classic and let me know what you think!
A little background on Noah: He is a youth pastor, so I think he deserves a little credibility on scripture interpretation.
Perhaps a little better understanding of the Matthew 5 passage is in order. To really understand what Jesus is trying to tell us, we need to know a little cultural background. When this was written, a slap on the face was meant to be degrading. It was something that a master would do to his slave, not to hurt him, but rather to say “I’m better than you.” Also, the “slap” is most likely referring to a back hand slap. So, if you can visualize it, if someone backhand slaps you with their right hand, on your right cheek, and you then turn your other cheek to them, it is no longer possible for them to slap you again Or at the very least it would have to be a very awkward slap if you think about it. So really, by turning your cheek you’re not inviting them to slap you again.but you are forcing them to make a decision. They can either punch you, or just walk away.and again, if you remember what a slap back then meant, most likely they will walk away because the original intent wasn’t to hurt you, but to humiliate you.
Also, during the time of Jesus, typical clothing included a tunic and a robe. Other than that they were pretty much naked. So if someone tries to take your tunic, and you give them your cloak as well, you will then be naked. In our society, if we are naked, we feel shame, but during the time of Jesus, the one who saw someone else naked felt the shame because they were seeing what they shouldn’t see. So really, instead of just giving up your cloak, you are pointing out to them the shame they are bringing upon themselves by their actions, and most likely, their response will be to not take anything from you.
Finally, during this time a Roman soldier could force a Jewish citizen to walk and carry their belongings for 1 mile, but no more. If you decide to walk with them an extra mile, they are the ones who begin to feel uneasy because if their superior officer sees them having you walk more than one mile with them, they could be disciplined and the result will probably be that they won’t ever ask you to carry their belongings again for fear that you’ll try to walk that extra mile with them again.
So I believe, when we understand all of that, Jesus isn’t telling us that we need to be push-over Christians. What He is doing is showing us ways in which we can creatively stand up for ourselves in the face of injustices, without turning to violence or sin.
That is theological crap.
I don’t want to stir up too much controversy, but this seems like quite an elaborate effort to avoid the clear meaning of this passage, to “not resist an evil person” (39), to “give to him who asks of you”, to “love your enemies” (43). Since I didn’t see it quoted here, let me quote the whole passage:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” — Matthew 5:38-42
The idea that Jesus had in mind a very subtle undermining of the clear understanding of what he was saying, with reference to awkward hand positions, the shame of a viewer of nakedness (let us not forget that Jesus was stripped at the cruxificition to cause HIM shame), or the potential discomfort of a Roman officer smacks to me of an attempt to discount his real admonition here — that we should NOT be concerned with standing up for ourselves or insisting upon our rights, but rather should practce a radical kind of love that extends generously even to those that wish us harm. This is a “dangerous” proposition; it opens us to the possibility of others taking advantage of us, to our being hurt, and to be treated unjustly. Jesus’s point here is that that does not matter. We should be willing to sacrifice earthly personal justice and our individual rights for the sake of displaying the astounding love of Christ.
From a new Anonymous (just to add to the discussion)…
After 3 years of seminary: The textual context needs to be more strongly considered than any cultural context. This passage comes in a long list of counter-cultural statements made by Jesus (“you have heard” and then “but I say”). Consideration of these counter-cultural statments should be enough to toss out any attempt to make this anything but a radical statment going against our instinct for retaliation. Noah’s explanation is somewhat disturbing because of the underlying attitude that it is weak to not retaliate. If our example is Jesus, then how can we ignore His greatest work on the cross where He voluntarily submitted Himself out of love? And if we want to get technical, the Greek verb ‘rapizo’ indicates a strike or blow. In fact, the phrase can be interpreted “whoever strikes you on the right jaw.” Luke 6:29 makes an even stronger case.
From the original anonymous:
Yay for Jeremy and new anonymous! I totally agree.
Excellent, excellent discussion!
Oh, and I didn’t write the comment “That is theological crap.”…just wanted to make that distinction!
Why shy away from examining both the textual context AND the cultural context? I mean, don’t we really want to understand what Jesus is getting at? Isn’t that why we study the Bible? If so, then why shy away from relevant information? I think the more we know the better?
And yes, this passage does come in a list of counter-cultural statement, and that is exactly why Jesus telling them to do. They don’t have to act out in violence, and they don’t have to just do nothing, which at that time, seemed to be the only options they had when faced with injustices. And if he was really telling them to do nothing, then why doesn’t he just say that instead of saying “turn the other cheek, or give your cloak as well, or walk the extra mile”? Well it’s because Jesus has a bigger picture in mind. Let me explain.
In verse 39, Jesus tells us to RESIST an evil person. The word resist is actually the word “anthistemi” in Greek, which can be literally translated as “to stand against”. This is a military term in the Greek language which is used in reference to violence. So, a more literal translation could be, “do not stand against an evil person using violence.” And the reason Jesus is saying this to the crowd is because they were living in a time where there were gross injustices happening to the Jews by the Roman government, and up to this point, there were two basic responses to this injustices. 1) Do nothing, or 2) fight back using violence. So what Jesus is doing here is giving them a third option, an option that asserts their rights and in turn, an option that allows the person in sin to choose to do right.
Again, let me explain. A slap in that culture is like saying, “I am better than you.” (And if you want to be technical, the Greek word rapizo actually means to strike or blow with an open hand) This I assume you would agree is a sin. However, if they turn their cheek, they don’t have to use violence to say that “no, we are equals.” Or in other words, they are pointing out to the person slapping that what they are doing is WRONG.
It is also extremely important for us to note that during this time they were in the midst of an economy that was falling apart. They had double taxation rates and many Jews were being forced to sell off the land that had been in their family for generations. And during this time, if you had lost everything, but stilled owed someone money, the Jewish custom was to give your clothing as a pledge (Deut 24) until you could pay your debt. But again, Jesus knew this was a system built on injustices, and if someone wealthy had taken your land and all your possessions, and then on top of that they even go as far as to take you to court to take the clothing off your back, Jesus is giving them as way to show the shame of what they are doing. And yes Jesus felt shame on the cross, but ask any historian, or go back and look at the story of when Noah got drunk and lie naked in front of his sons…nakedness in the Jewish culture brings shame on those who see it. So if you give up your cloak as well, and stand there naked before the one who has taken everything else from you, then maybe, just maybe, they will see that what they are doing is WRONG.
And finally, if you walk a mile with a soldier, and then go the extra mile, you expose the inhumanity of using someone like a pack mule to carry your stuff around, or in other words, you are saying to them that what they are doing is WRONG.
When this happens, not only can you stand up for yourself, but you also expose the inhumanity and the injustices AND you give the person committing the injustice the opportunity to do the right thing. They can say, you know what, I guess I don’t need to hit you, or I guess I don’t need to take everything from you, or treat you like some animal. You see, Christ is brilliant here because not only does he teach us creative way to stand up for ourselves, but at the same time he shows us how to expose sin and gives others the opportunity to change. If we simply do nothing, we aren’t displaying the astounding love of Christ, we actually just doing nothing…but if we expose the injustice THEN we are displaying the astounding love of Christ by allow them to leave their sinful ways and live right. Loving someone doesn’t allow them to keep sinning. Loving someone shows them how to live right.
I am not a Biblical scholar, but my pastor is. He has his Doctorate in Biblical studies or something like that and he preached on this exact scripture not too long ago. Actually he just finished a nine month series on The sermon on the mount. Anyway, being someone who went to school for 37 years i trust his preaching.
Getting to my point… He preached the same things Noah is saying. I especially remember the thing about slapping and turning the other cheek- how it would be impossible for that person to hit you, and the thing about walking a mile and going with him another. I remember him saying something about the cloak which matched what Noah said, but i don’t remember all the details. Anyway, if someone who has studied for that long is agreeing with Noah, i agree with Noah.
“Anyway, if someone who has studied for that long is agreeing with Noah, i agree with Noah.”
This is a very dangerous position. Respecting authority and education can be a good thing, but abdicating the responsibility of personal thought and interpretation is a terribly dangerous road, particularly in this day and age where almost any of us could find a more educated person supporting any arbitrary side of an issue.
Back to the topic at hand: while what Noah says has merit and certainly a realization of wrong within the other person could be a beneficial thing, it is still clearly not Jesus’s main point. Even from a low-level technical standpoint this falls apart — for example, consider vese 40, “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt [or tunic, Greek chiton], let him have your coat [or cloak] also.” The context of the command is a legal setting, and the undergarment is mentioned first! This would hardly make sense as a suggestion to expose oneself when one’s coat is demanded in the street. Jesus is not advocating a subtle form of non-violent resistance (and just for some authoritative support, note that this section is labelled in the Ryrie study bible as “The law of nonresistance”), but rather a radical kind of non-resistance, once that relinquishes any claim to retaliation, resistence, or even ill will, in favor of a pure love.
As someone else pointed out, consider the parallel passage in Luke 6, containing verses perhaps even clearer still, such as “Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes what is yours, do not demand it back” (30), and “love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return” (35). Jesus’s point is clear — our rights on earth pale in comparison to our rich reward in heaven for loving others the way God loves them.
Amen, Jeremy.
amen noah. you’re awesome. how did you get to be so wise…and good looking, etc…
Noah, why would you “amen” your own comment?!
I’m curious how this particular interpretation relates to Bethibaby’s specific situation (or if it does). Where have others “sinned” against her (or God) in this situation, and how is her blatant defiance merely a “creative way” of showing them how to “live right”?
I would have to agree with jeremy on the last points- first, that everything should be thought out for oneself and not taken at face value, and that is why I appreciate this discussion.
Second, that the spirit of the message of Jesus here, and elsewhere, is to love our enemies toward Jesus.
Noah is suggesting ‘creative judgment’ with the hope and end to make the enemy moral. Jesus seems more interested, overall, in making the enemy a follower, and worry about morality after that. For example, he hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and ‘sinners’- and he didn’t condemn their actions or humiliate them (like you say he’s suggesting here), he just loved them to himself. Once they met him, they were inspired- not humiliated- into following him and changing their lifestyle.
The point isn’t to ‘make people moral’- the point is to introduce them to Jesus, and be Jesus to them. Back to the point- should we be concerned with ‘teaching my neighbor a lesson’ by continuing to annoy them with laundry, or “Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes what is yours, do not demand it back”?
I am not saying that I don’t think for myself, just so you know. But I did want to encourage Noah by letting him know that someone who has studied the Bible for a long time preached the same points he is. That line I said “Anyway, if someone who has studied for that long is agreeing with Noah, i agree with Noah.” was just me encouraging him. I do think that many things Jesus said has two meanings, the take it as you read it meaning and the deeper cultural meaning- Jesus knew things would change between then and now but it also had to apply to those people living then. But you’re right, we’ve gotten off subject a little as far as Beth’s laundry goes.