Christ did not "turn the other cheek"

[Desert Walker]

When the temple guard went up to Jesus and slapped him, what did Jesus do? Apparently, he did not turn the other cheek to the man! Instead, Christ CHALLENGED his very RIGHT to attack!

So what did Christ actually mean when he said "turn and give him the other?"

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 5 2006, 03:16 PM']When the temple guard went up to Jesus and slapped him, what did Jesus do?  Apparently, he did not turn the other cheek to the man!  Instead, Christ CHALLENGED his very RIGHT to attack!

So what did Christ actually mean when he said "turn and give him the other?"
[right][snapback]936789[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Christ certainly turned the other cheek...He allowed Himself to be crucified...but He asked the question He asked in order to make a point to the Sanhedrin.

[Church Punk]

If you look at Christ audiance of the sermon on the mount, it is mainly peasents and other followers of his. To understand the teaching of turning the other cheek, first we should understand the times. Typically if someone were to slap your face they would use their right hand and slap with the back of the hand if you were a peasent. Thus if you were slaped with the back of the hand on the right cheek it is as if they are say you are dirt, worthless.

While turning the other cheek would require them to slap with the open palm on the Left cheek. Thus causing the aggressor to elevate you and the status and the way he thinks of you. To slap with an open palm was considered to be done by someone who they had respect for.

Thus turning the other cheek you are not only forcing the aggresor to re-think his actions, you are infact causing him to elevate your status. By turning the cheek it says that you are not worthless but respectable.

That is one one take on it.

[Era Might]

Interesting. I never read that before.

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Apr 5 2006, 03:30 PM']If you look at Christ audiance of the sermon on the mount, it is mainly peasents and other followers of his. To understand the teaching of turning the other cheek, first we should understand the times. Typically if someone were to slap your face they would use their right hand and slap with the back of the hand if you were a peasent. Thus if you were slaped with the back of the hand on the right cheek it is as if they are say you are dirt, worthless.

While turning the other cheek would require them to slap with the open palm on the Left cheek. Thus causing the aggressor to elevate you and the status and the way he thinks of you. To slap with an open palm was considered to be done by someone who they had respect for.

Thus turning the other cheek you are not only forcing the aggresor to re-think his actions, you are infact causing him to elevate your status. By turning the cheek it says that you are not worthless but respectable.

That is one one take on it.
[right][snapback]936803[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Snarf]

I've heard of that, and I think it's just a modernist attempt to make it easier to be a Christian when it shouldn't be. That proposal only came about within the last decade, correct?

[jswranch]

I have heard the 'back hand, open palm' theory before and find it plausible. I do not know of the history.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Apr 5 2006, 03:30 PM']If you look at Christ audiance of the sermon on the mount, it is mainly peasents and other followers of his. To understand the teaching of turning the other cheek, first we should understand the times. Typically if someone were to slap your face they would use their right hand and slap with the back of the hand if you were a peasent. Thus if you were slaped with the back of the hand on the right cheek it is as if they are say you are dirt, worthless.

While turning the other cheek would require them to slap with the open palm on the Left cheek. Thus causing the aggressor to elevate you and the status and the way he thinks of you. To slap with an open palm was considered to be done by someone who they had respect for.

Thus turning the other cheek you are not only forcing the aggresor to re-think his actions, you are infact causing him to elevate your status. By turning the cheek it says that you are not worthless but respectable.

That is one one take on it.
[right][snapback]936803[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Interesting, sounds logical but I do not think that is correct... I just searched all the Early Church Fathers writings and this is what I found....


[quote]For if to the Gentiles smiting us on the right, we must turn the other cheek; much more ought one to bear with harsh behavior in a husband.
-HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

For it is of no benefit to a cause to encounter railing with railing and to retaliate for attacks upon oneself by attacks upon one's opponents. We are commanded not to return evil for evil(1) but to overcome evil with good,(2) to take our fill of insults, and to turn the other cheek to the smiter.(3)
-Letters of St. Jerome LETTER LXXXIV. TO PAMMACHIUS AND OCEANUS.


And the same being who told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree, has commanded you not to speak evil, not to lie, not to detract, not to listen to a detractor, to swear not at all, not to covet, not to envy, not to be drunken, not to be greedy, not to render evil for evil to any one, to love your enemies, to bless them that curse you, to pray for them that malign and persecute you, to turn the other cheek to one smiting you, and not to go to law before a worldly tribunal, so that, if any one seeks to take away your goods, you should joyfully lose them,
A LETTER OF SULPITIUS SEVERUS TO HIS SISTER CLAUDIA CONCERNING VIRGINITY.
CHAPTER VII.


We who carry about our very soul, our very body, exposed in this world[6] to injury from all, and exhibit patience under that injury; shall we be hurt at the loss[7] of less important things?[8] Far from a servant of Christ be such a defilement as that the patience which has been prepared for greater temptations should forsake him in frivolous ones. If one attempt to provoke you by manual violence, the monition of the Lord is at hand: "To him," He saith, "who smiteth thee on the face, turn the other cheek likewise."[9] Let outrageousness[10] be wearied out by your patience. Whatever that blow may be, conjoined[11] with pain and contumely, it[12] shall receive a heavier one from the Lord. You wound that outrageous[13] one more by enduring: for he will be beaten by Him for whose sake you endure. If the tongue's bitterness break out in malediction or reproach, look back at the saying, "When they curse you, rejoice."
-OF PATIENCE (TERTULLIAN)
CHAP. VIII.--OF PATIENCE UNDER PERSONAL VIOLENCE AND MALEDICTION. [/quote]


And when looking at the context we see that it is clearly not to hit back...
[quote][b]St. Matt 5:38 [/b]
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
[b]39 [/b]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.
[b]40 [/b]If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
[b]41 [/b]Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.
[b]42 [/b]Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
[b]43 [/b]"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
[b]44 [/b]But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
[b]45 [/b]that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
[b]46 [/b]For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors 28 do the same?
[b]47 [/b]And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
[b]48 [/b]So be perfect, 30 just as your heavenly Father is perfect. [/quote]

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Era Might]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Apr 5 2006, 04:06 PM']I've heard of that, and I think it's just a modernist attempt to make it easier to be a Christian when it shouldn't be.  That proposal only came about within the last decade, correct?
[right][snapback]936841[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There's nothing "modernist" about it. We are not fundamentalists. The Scriptures were written in a historical context. Part of the job of an exegete is to draw out that context.

[Amator Veritatis]

"Drawing out the context" to the exclusion of the constant understanding of the Church, especially as given by the Church Fathers, is the reason it would be considered modernist. If such an understanding were formulated in the past decade, that understanding of the passage would be foreign to the teaching of everyone throughout the history of the Church, be they theologians, scholars, Saints or others. This scenario appears to be the case in this matter.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 6 2006, 10:29 AM']"Drawing out the context" to the exclusion of the constant understanding of the Church, especially as given by the Church Fathers, is the reason it would be considered modernist. If such an understanding were formulated in the past decade, that understanding of the passage would be foreign to the teaching of everyone throughout the history of the Church, be they theologians, scholars, Saints or others. This scenario appears to be the case in this matter.
[right][snapback]937580[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Fathers of the Church do not exhaust Biblical exegesis. And neither do they claim to, which is why we have, even among the Fathers, a rich array of opinion.

[quote]Certainly texts must first of all be traced back to their historical origins and interpreted in their proper historical context. But then, in a second exegetical operation, one must look at them also in light of the total movement of history and in light of history's central event, Jesus Christ. Only the combination of both these methods will yield understanding of the Bible. If the first exegetical operation by the Fathers and in the Middle Ages is found to be lacking, so too is the second, since it easily falls into arbitrariness. Thus, the first was fruitless, but the rejection of any coherence of meaning leads to an opinionated methodology.

--Pope Benedict XVI[/quote]

There is nothing "foreign" about what Church Punk said. He provided a historical context for the passage. The Fathers were usually concerned with a spiritual exegesis, rather than historical. The two are not opposed.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

Amator, is this not a false dichotomy? If one views Holy Scripture as being inexhaustible in depth and meaning, then surely a cultural-context form of exegesis does not preclude or in any way harm Tradition (provided it does not directly contradict authoritative interpretations). An interpretation simply being from the past decade does not make it foreign to Tradition, rather, the [i]content[/i] of the interpretation is what determines that. Looking at Scripture in the context within which it was written can be a powerful way to understand the teachings of Christ.

Now, with this specific interpretation, I have never heard of any such thing, nor does it square either with textual context.

[Desert Walker]

[quote]JeffCR07:

Looking at Scripture in the context within which it was written can be a powerful way to understand the teachings of Christ.[/quote]

It can also be a powerful way to deny every traditional Catholic teaching.

The primary pitfall of the historico-critical method of Biblical exegesis is that Jesus Christ transcended His own historical context. This Chrstological doctrine immediately throws doubt on any exegesis that disagrees with a traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. He said things that CAN be understood in a clearer way when put in the context of certain archeaological and historical knowledge. However, the same "clearer understanding" gleaned from that alleged knowledge of His time, can be completely disregarded with the knowledge of His personal divinity, and that His divine nature enabled him to speak to ALL historical periods.

Great caution must be exercised when the historico-critical method is used to obtain an "better understanding" of Christ's words and actions in Scripture. For it is very easy to make the assumption that His words and actions can ONLY be CORRECTLY understood once we have obtained perfect knowledge of the cultural facts of the particular historical period in which He walked the earth in human form. This is a serious mistake which can actually lead to apostasy.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Norseman82]

We're also not sola scriptura literalists; we are allowed to defend ourselves; see the parts of the CCC regarding legitimate defense.

[Amator Veritatis]

Jeff, you are correct. I misspoke in my previous post. The actual interpretation itself is, of course, the standard by which it would be judged to be modernist, and this was the sense in which my initial comment was made, namely, that such a context would be modernist specifically if it contradicted the constant understanding of the Church. The time frame in which such a position were advocated would not be relevant. Thank you for pointing out this error in my previous statement.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

The 'new' interpretation of this passage does not invalidate the old point. The problem with many modernists is that they supposedly find a new interpretation for a part of the bible and suddenly old interpretations are invalid. While there is a point for asking to be treated free and not as slaves, it doesn't mean that it is now okay to violently retaliate. That is where I have a problem with modernist interpretation. They've done the same thing with Soddom and Gamorrah by saying the cities 'didn't show hospitality.' Were they unhospitable? Sure, I'll accept that. Did God destroy the cities because of that? Nope. It was for the traditionally believed reasons.