NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey all.

I'm neither a believer nor a Bible scholar, thus I turn to you lot, oh great sages of NSG. My girl & I were debating whether the "turn the other cheek" bit in the Bible, is about passive resistance, or about putting up with abuse. Unfortunately we don't have a Bible handy, so there's no way to get it in context.

Anyway, she argues that the "turn the other cheek" bit is intended as a lesson in defiance. Christians were very few & pursecuted by all authorities at the time. Thus, their only means of resistance - without comitting assisted suicide - was to try to show their opponents the futility of abusing them, much like Ghandi.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me, except I recall some Biblical bits about giving everything to everyone, like say, giving your jacket, shirt & shoes to someone who wants your jacket. That too, of course, might be a sort of passive resistance, but I have a hard time buying into that.

So.. What's your opinions? - Please feel free to show us the context.

The bit you paraphrased - "giving your jacket, shirt & shoes to someone who wants your jacket" - is actually from the same passage as the turning of cheeks business: the so-called "Sermon on the Mount." I believe there's parallels in a couple other gospels, but I found it in Matthew Chapter 5.

The gist of the sermon is about moving beyond the stipulations of the earlier commandments, and ol' Jesus sets the bar pretty high - basically saying "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth's not going to cut it any more." He's exhorting people to be more forgiving, generous and compassionate. Of course, the beauty of the Bible is that you can interpret various bits just about any way you please. I'm sure the turning the other cheek thing was employed by King if not by Gandhi in the context of passive resistance - it certainly lends itself to it - but in the original context it seems to be more of a critique of the prevailing "blood feud" mentality. That's my first thought, anyway...

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. 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." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

I tend to take the non-literal road on this, it's not so much about living in abuse, or getting the crap smacked out of you because you are a Christian and loving it, as it is a call for perspective. One of my favorite verses in the whole Bible is


"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12

the things that go one between people, don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, don't get caught up with what the asshole at work said to you, it's not really going to matter, and if you seek revenge you are going to end up looking like an ass too. Let them do what they must, don't stoop to thier level, live the best you can with what you got, and let them be idiots.

but.....as always don't listen to me, I am a strange girl.

I'm neither a believer nor a Bible scholar, thus I turn to you lot, oh great sages of NSG. My girl & I were debating whether the "turn the other cheek" bit in the Bible, is about passive resistance, or about putting up with abuse. Unfortunately we don't have a Bible handy, so there's no way to get it in context.

You have internetaccess, and therefor never need to be without a Bible.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

You got me. I had Jesus for calculus. *shrug*

Sort of like Smunkee's saying, it's a "be better than them" and love everyone type thing. It's not supposed to condone abuse, just forgiveness of it and laughing it off, so that abuse doesn't lead to vendetta, etc. Be the example for others to live by, etc.

Well, that's my interpretation, anyway. ;)

Best case example of turning the other cheek is Gandhi IMO. And he never really called it 'passive' resistance. It was active, but non-violent. By turning the other cheek you supposedly awaken the guy hitting you to the wrong of what he's doing while not committing the same crime.

The gist of the sermon is about moving beyond the stipulations of the earlier commandments, and ol' Jesus sets the bar pretty high - basically saying "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth's not going to cut it any more." He's exhorting people to be more forgiving, generous and compassionate. Of course, the beauty of the Bible is that you can interpret various bits just about any way you please. I'm sure the turning the other cheek thing was employed by King if not by Gandhi in the context of passive resistance - it certainly lends itself to it - but in the original context it seems to be more of a critique of the prevailing "blood feud" mentality. That's my first thought, anyway...Hmm.. You're probably right. Neither one of us knows anything much about the culture at the time. But then again, the "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Does seem to be the very essence of passive resistance, doesn't it? "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. 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." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)Hmm.. The consensus at this end, is that the passage looks very much like it encourages passive resistance. It seems like a command to show non-violent defiance, but at least it doesn't seem to have much to do with being persecuted.I tend to take the non-literal road on this, it's not so much about living in abuse, or getting the crap smacked out of you because you are a Christian and loving it, as it is a call for perspective. One of my favorite verses in the whole Bible is

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12.How closely related are these passages? - If they're related, they'd seem to back my girlfriend's argument.the things that go one between people, don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, don't get caught up with what the asshole at work said to you, it's not really going to matter, and if you seek revenge you are going to end up looking like an ass too. Let them do what they must, don't stoop to thier level, live the best you can with what you got, and let them be idiots.

but.....as always don't listen to me, I am a strange girlHeh, you're very much a Christian, so in this particular case, I think you're entirely the right person to listen to - and in a more general sense, both of us here agree with your sentiment. You have internetaccess, and therefor never need to be without a Bible.

http://www.biblegateway.com/Thanks! And now that we have the actual passage, we'll even be able to read the thing in context. Most helpful you are. If there was a rep system on here, I'd give you a point.

EDIT: OK, we're Biblically illiterate at this end. How do you guys find anything in that online Bible? All we've found is Matthew 25, 1-46 NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&version=31) and it doesn't seem to mention anything about cheeks & tunics.

How closely related are these passages? - If they're related, they'd seem to back my girlfriend's argument.
Ephesians is written by Paul and he was in prison (under Roman guard) at the time (iirc) the letter to the church of Ephesus is speaking about spiritual warfare (during that part) since they ( the Ephesians) were living in a pagan environment at the time, and Christians were being persecuted (only this time not by the Jewish priests of which Paul used to be one)

too much history?

okay, here......Jesus in the "sermon on the Mount" was IMO speaking to his followers about the best way to live as Christians in the real world, Paul was speaking to Christians about how to survive and still serve Christ in the "real world" as well, so I say closely related in subject matter, but not in time period. ;)



Heh, you're very much a Christian, so in this particular case, I think you're entirely the right person to listen to - and in a more general sense, both of us here agree with your sentiment.
thanks. :)

Mt 5:38( Also Luke 6:29) 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 one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. .....5:43 You have heard that it was said. 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; ..........For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors to the same?........

This goes on for quite a while but I think you can get the idea that a Christian is to act out of love for everyone, not act in revenge. I don't think it says you should stay with someone that is abusing you but you should pray for an abuser. It does say that when you meet someone that does evil to you, you should respond in kindness not in hate.

Myself, I think it was an exhortation to not let yourself be mired in the dirty business of revenge and calculation of harms. Neither to try to quantify your own suffering nor to try and justify things by it.

Why ? because in a way it is absurd, and I can see him intoning this sarcastically :) Because you are being abused, and if this has happened you have no control over the circumstances. So why pretend you can regain control save by doing abuse yourself ? You might as well take _an arbitrary_ amount of abuse because you will never be revenged nor vindicated if you follow Jesus.

I think you need to read the whole chapter to get the _context_ of this section....so let's review the whole thing....

---->Earlier in the chapter, he makes clear he is not about "Good things happening to those who do good". At one point, he says that you should let someone sue you for every cent you have (informally, by settling out of court) rather than empower a corrupt government to imprison you on top of the same verdict by formal mechanism of law.

That only serves to demonstrate the power of the law and make it awe inspiring to observers. He argues to strangle it by marginalizing it , because the law will not make people good....only a consensus to seek virtue will.

---->At another point, he says that even if you have been abused in your marriage and are grateful for the release of a divorce, you should not count yourself free. You had a duty laid upon you and it is eternal unless the husband (the only one who could get the writ of divorce in this time period) was philandering. You would think that enduring abuse patiently would entitle you to a new life if you were finally let free, but he waves an admonishing finger.

---->He emphasizes that the virtuous underpinning of your deeds must be constant and obvious, presumably through consistency and unswerving adherence to justice (since he criticizes else where ostentatious do-gooding).

---->He states that oaths are worthless because you will either keep them or not, no mumbo jumbo is going to make you keep it, and you often offer disrespect to G*d by the object of your oath. The only thing that matters is keeping your naked promise.

---->He states that making sure your fellow man is not angry with you is more important than pleasing G*d by ritual.

---->He says that just thinking about adultery is as bad as the act, and just delivering whole hearted rudeness to your fellow man is as bad as murder.

---->He also says that even though he's contemplating the end of the world, until that point, the ancient Laws of the Old Testament still apply. The intent is to establish the discipline is what is pleasing to G*d as much as the goal of that commitment.

I feel he implies that they should keep it just to demonstrate how ethically tough they are by emphasizing that obedience is what is being rewarded...without any affirmation of or endorsement of that law...and stating indirectly after the end of the world it will no longer apply.

----> The "thou shalls" are essentially injunctions to take expansive, open ended views of your commitment to do good.

The extremism in all these statements demands some reconciliation. I say extremism deliberately. Look at the above...all of the statements rest on either
(a) An exhortation to a very energetic and perfectionist standard of doing good
(b) the denial of rewards or compensations that would seem reasonable for the "good guys" to hope for
(c) the emphasis that the moral good of being obedient is more important than having a life even _a little bit_ easier.
(d) an indifference to the bad things that can befall the faithful

It is not extemism without some merits. For example, the bit about "even the tax collectors do_that_" was brilliant in reminding people that they paint too positive a picture of themselves by overvaluing their "routine" virtues....and this complacency has been a bugbear of every religion to wrestle with.

The point is I think both you and your partner are wrong. Passive resistance is fundamentally about getting power by indirect ways, where as Jesus is scorning the idea of _any_ accumulation of power for securing your rights and safety, much less any reward, in _any_ context in the whole chapter.

Yet to say it is brainwashing to make people suck up the pain doesn't seem fully substainable to me. First, the most obvious lesson there is to talk about the enobling and virtuous nature of pain itself. (Paul was quite happy to take this direction, with his "the church is nurtured by the blood of martyrs" where he counts a martyr as equivalent or better to a virtuous life lived in full, even though the martyr might not be as ethical a person....) I don't believe Jesus takes this line anywhere in the New Testament.

The closest to this idea is "blessed are those persecuted for righteousness"....but the key idea there is that _you got hurt doing your duty_. The pain isn't what you are being rewarded for (it doesn't say _how_ much persecution counts) but for having brought it upon yourself by attracting unwelcome attention by your virtuous behaviour.

I don't see how you can try to teach that "pain is good for you" without going into quantifying levels of pain and hierarchies of discomfort and the corresponding reward. If you don't establish such thing, than people can inflate their suffering, and given that Jesus is quite keen on eking out every iota of goodness from his followers, I don't see him being complacent or vague if pain is his mechanism of achieving sanctification.

Whereas since he is refusing to set benchmarks in "how good is good" he is laying an assymptotic burden upon people....but that makes sense in that context because if you're trying to get sincerity you don't want people trying to calculate "brownie points"....

If the mechanism of holiness if pain, then the barrier in human nature is to try to avoid the pain, so you need to measure pain in exactly what terms what gains come from what sacrifices. Pain-worshippers are caught in the paradox of not liking their experience but needing it for justification, and thus the thrust of teaching is to show them "it's not so bad, see, this is within your reach, if you will only do it".

If the dynamic is virtue, you _don't_ want people measuring it because the act of virtuousness ( while it can have costs) is essentially quiet and passive for the most part. You need to create a sense of urgency in people. Or they will inflate the little things and just ignore the failures on the big things. Virtue worshippers are caught in the paradox that no one wants to be bad, but it's hard to truly care enough to make doing good the be all and end all of your life. People will feel happy enough with their duty (being nice is kind of a motherhood issue) but will shy away from really pushing to be good if you give them any chance to let themselves off the hook.

You avoid letting them off the hook by being specific with pain, and vague with virtue.

I'm not saying he couldnt' be driving at pain-sanctification here....but it just seems to me the tone is wrong. I think that's because while he enjoins them not to try and _avoid_ suffering, and that he _expects_ them to suffer for being conspicuously virtuous....he doesn't ask them to _seek out_ suffering.

The "pain is good for you" catechism can make more sense in a mass organization, because you want people to be submissive to authority. But he was envisioning a community _without_ authority, each person on a personal and totally committed quest to be righteous for their whole life.

I think the extermism of the chapter is all focused at the point of making people restless and unable to be complacent. To be truly and absolutely humble and unattached to _anything_ except the value of their actions in a moral sense. He's hoping by presenting the vision in dramatic and compelling terms it may take root. Since his apocaylpse cult _did_ gain substantial traction, the effectiveness of this thrust is moderately impressive.

I'll note I'm an ex Catholic in the process of converting to Judaism.

However, by the same token, despite his overall aim....I don't like this climax of his philosophy here. (We'll even ignore his substantial but in passing claims to prophethood which are biblically false and thus strip his writings of authenticity as a part of any Testament endorsed by G*d according to the earlier books of the Old Testament.)

He's hoping by making people less secure and indifferent to pain that he can focus them on purity and goodness in the abstract. But really, we've seen in contemporary times how unsatisfying the results of this are. This was _exactly_ what Mao achieved in the Cultural Revolution. No one felt they had any right to any justice or security, and everyone fell all over themselves demonstrating how dedicated to justice and the community they were.

Now, you can say "wait a sec, Mao was _evil" (which is largely substainable I think...)...but the point is...what his society demonstrated in that period is that people without security -create their own-...in this case, by making cliques of persecutors who toadied up to the authorities to beat upon the marginalized figures in the new order. They weren't ideologically pure ,despite all reading from the Red Book. What they _truly_ understood was that in such an unsettled environment, the best path to security was to beg for the right to hold the whip and use it liberally.

We have also seen this sort of thing in John Calvin's Geneva...where the Righteous were in an eternal witch hunt against "the wicked". Now it's interesting that both Calvin _and_ Jesus emphasize that this isn't what they want....but they didn't state against it strongly enough, clearly enough and most of all often enough to convince anyone after their deaths.

Once the early Christians got kicked out of their sleepwalking by Paul, they got into some _literal_ culture wars...which whatever they said in their letters to Paul were obviously the heart and soul of their action. Nothing like deciding you're in the Army of Good against Evil to comfort you when philosophically you're not supposed to have any comfort beyond "God is impressed with your efforts if you do what I say".

What I'm saying is that if you take away people's belief that their default state of being is safe and they can earn protections and rewards....they get crazy.

The success of Judaism in the post Diaspora period lay heavily in the fact that ritual was not empty or formalistic (as the New Testament falsely states) and in fact gave them a sense of everything they needed to do to focus themselves on being good to each other. They had a place, a context, and rights and responsibilities. They were given the security and relative safety that the Early Christians did not have (if they took Jesus at his word).

(And it's worth noting the Christians mostly just sat around in big camps waiting for the world to end and trying not to do much to interact with the world at all. It was not until Paul came that they changed, and this is quite an interesting advent in what it implies about the G*d of the Christians)

The Jewish compliance with their "do's and don'ts" didn't itself make them pure....but it did create a committed, theologically literate population...you had to do a lot of stuff to show you were serious about thinking and caring about the Law in a Jewish Ghetto. And this effort both gave some quiet pride without "breaking your back patting yourself on it too hard"...and had people inspired to be in the right frame of mind for the hard moral challenges that would invetiably face them.