Cheek Turn, Cloak Give, Mile Walk

[dairygirl4u2c]

questions, comments, words of wisdom?


[quote]“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
evildoer. (But) if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants
to sue you and take your coat, give (them) your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one
mile, go the second mile too.” (Matt. 5:38-41)
Now, at first reading this might seem like a formula for passivity.
As I say, at first blush, Jesus’ advice may come across as kind of wimpy. But some
biblical scholars now think it was nothing of the kind.[/quote]

[quote]Consider the sentence: “Do not resist one who is evil.” That may sound passive – you
know, just let evil people do their thing – but the word translated as “resist” is antisténai, which
comes from “anti,” meaning “against;” and histémi, which generally means a violent fight.
May “antisténai” then, although it could mean a simple “don’t resist” more probably
mean “don’t resist with violence.” Jesus is not teaching his followers to sit back and let evil
people do their thing, in other words – he’s just telling them not to react in kind – that is, with
violence.[/quote]
[quote](Or) Consider the sentence: “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go the second mile as
well.” Now, you need to know that in those days Rome, as the occupying power, had a rule that
if a soldier needed help lugging his equipment down the road, then he could commandeer any
Jew to carry it for him.
But in order to not have their subject peoples rise up in revolt too often, Rome limited the
amount of distance a Jew would have to assume the burden for a Roman to one mile. That’s why
there were mileposts all along the major roads -- so that both Jew and Roman knew when the job
was done.
Now, imagine that you're a Roman soldier and you press one of your subject citizens into
service. You've reminded them who's boss -- you, after all, have the power to make them work
for you; they don't have the power to make you work for them. So assert your authority by
making them lug your equipment for a mile. And when they're done, they ask if they can go
another. What are you to do?
If you take them up on their offer you could get into trouble, because the law says you
can only make them go one mile. You think: “If they go two, who will get blamed? Me or
them?” And you wonder: “Are they being insolent?” (But how would I ever explain that to a
judge? “Your honor, this Jew disrespected me, I told him to carry my gear for a mile, and he
offered to carry it longer.” “And your problem?”)
(And) meanwhile, if the soldier hasn't thought about it before, this Jew has reminded him
of how unfair the Romans are to make their subjects carry the very equipment that Rome uses to
keep them down.
OK. Let me pretend I’m the Roman soldier again. I’ve gotten you to carry my equipment
one mile, as the law allows. But now you’ve volunteered to go another mile. And now I’m forced
to think about the law.
You see, while we were going the first mile, I didn’t have to – I was just getting what the
law says I deserve. But now, at the offer of a second mile, I think: “No, that’s illegal.” But then I
have to think: “Why is it legal for me to make them go even one mile?”[/quote]



OK. How about this sentence: “If someone wants to sue you and take up your coat, let them have
your cloak as well.” Now, what’s translated here as coat was really a tunic – it was a long shirt
Page 3
worn right over your body; and what’s translated as cloak was an outer garment to protect you
from the cold and rain.
Now, it was not uncommon in ancient times, if someone owed you something, and they
weren’t paying you back on time, to take their coat as collateral. We know this, because the
Book of Exodus [22:25-26] has a rule about it. It says: “If ever you take your neighbor’s garment
in pledge (meaning, as collateral for a loan), you shall restore it to him before the sun goes
down.”
Why do you think you were supposed to get it back before sundown? (Right. Because
your coat is what you covered yourself with when you went to bed – it doubled as a blanket.)
By the way, peasants in those days did not wear underwear, so giving up those two
garments would leave you naked. This has caused some scholars to suggest that Jesus was saying
these things for comic effect. But if you were demanding someone’s tunic for collateral and they
gave you their cloak too, thus bearing themselves nude – wouldn’t you be kind of embarrassed at
appearing to deprive them of so much - and maybe say, “Uh, that’s OK – I’ll trust you for now”?
(Gives a whole other meaning to “turn the other cheek.”)


[quote]Which brings us to the biggie. “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn the other
also.” Now, again, this sounds kind of wussy. Let me show you why it isn’t. For this I’ll need a
volunteer.
OK, let’s say I want to strike (Bill) on his right cheek. Generally, if I’m going to use my right
hand, I’ll strike (Bill’s) left cheek. How do I get his right cheek instead? Well, I could use my
left hand – but in that society your left hand was only used for unclean things, and it was
considered taboo to just put it out there. So the left hand is out of the question.
And the only way to hit (Bill’s) right cheek with my right hand is to back-hand him. And
that is indeed what usually took place. Masters generally back-handed their slaves, parents
back-handed their children, men back-handed women, and Romans back-handed Jews. It was a
way of asserting dominance, of saying in effect: “You’re not worthy of being hit by the palm of
my hand – you just get the back.”
Jesus probably wasn’t talking about a situation of two people in a fist fight here. He was
talking about a person with higher status striking someone with lower status - as a way to show
who’s boss. (Thanks)
Now, you’ve got to understand: If you’re the person with lower status, you can’t really
strike back without getting into hot water, right? I mean, if a slave owner strikes his slave, that
slave can’t strike back without putting his life in jeopardy. If a parent back-hands her kids, those
kids are not likely to hit her back (at least, not in a society where parents were allowed to kill
their children if their children cursed them.)
So, the people Jesus is talking to – the ones who were generally on the lowest rung of
society’s ladder, (the nobodies, you might say) – don’t really have the option of striking back if
one of their “betters” disrespects them. But Jesus tells them to do an interesting thing. Rather
than just sit there and take it, he says, “turn the other cheek.” What happens then? OK, I need
another volunteer.
OK, show me your left cheek. (on your face) OK, I can’t back-hand you with my left hand -
because that’s the hand I use when I go to the bathroom, and that’s taboo. So I’m limited to my
right hand. But if I hit you with my right palm, I’m striking you the way an equal would – which
would mean admitting that we’re both peers, and that’s something I don’t want to convey in any
Page 4
way. (After all, the reason I slapped you in the first place was to show you I’m better than you. If
I strike you as a peer, I’ll negate that message.)
What Jesus is offering his followers, it may be, is a way to appear to be obedient while
still holding the cards in a way. It’s basically saying: “You want me to be submissive – Ok, I’ll
be submissive. In fact, I’ll be better than submissive – I’ll turn my other cheek so you can hit me
again. (Only, that will ruin the whole game for you).” (Thanks)
It’s a little like that song years ago about playing cards, ‘You’ve got to know when to
hold 'em, know when to fold 'em – know when to walk away, know when to run …’ (Wow,
you’re more theologically astute than I thought!) What Jesus seems to be telling his followers is
how to look like you’re folding while still holding a few cards.
Some commentators have noted that when two wolves are fighting to the death, if the one
that’s losing bares its neck to the dominant one – to signify defeat – the dominant one will stop
fighting it. What’s noteworthy, I think, is that the losing wolf – which appears to have no power
– actually has the power to end the fight. It has more control over the situation than may first
appear.
And since this Friday begins Black History Month, and this past Monday was Martin
Luther King Jr.’s birthday, it might be well to remember that the civil-rights struggle in the
United States was largely won through strategies like Jesus’. You see, some people think there
are only two ways to meet oppression: either you fight your foes or you meekly accept whatever
crumbs they offer you. (Or, you could say: “Fight or flight.”)
But Jesus seems to be offering a third way that’s not exactly either. And I say Jesus, but
the idea is present in other religious traditions too. For example, the Jewish Book of Proverbs
says: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to
drink; for you will (thereby) heap coals of fire on his head…” [25:21-22] (Or, as we sometimes
say, “Love your enemies – it’ll make them wonder what you’re up to.”)
(Now,) and since I mentioned the civil-rights movement, I should probably note that the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. got his idea of nonviolent resistance not from a Christian source
(though it’s there, of course), but from a Hindu named Mahatma Gandhi (who Dr. King learned
about when visiting a Unitarian Church!). So, to honor the Hindu tradition, here’s a little passage
from the Hindu Cural: “It is the determination of the pure not to do evil in return to those who
have done evil to them. When you inflict suffering – even if it’s on those who hate you without
any good reason – it will in the end give you sorrow. The punishment of those who have done
you evil, is to put them to shame by showing great kindness.”
Now, the question is sometimes raised: What if returning good for evil ends up making
things worse? Consider this Buddhist passage I sometimes use to introduce Joys and Concerns.
Zen master Ryokan lived a very simple life in a little hut at the foot of the mountain. One night,
when he was away, a thief broke into the hut… only to discover that there was nothing to steal.
Ryokan returned and caught the burglar, and the burglar was afraid Ryokan would punish him.
But Ryokan said, “You have put yourself to much trouble to visit me. You must not go away
empty-handed. Please accept my clothing and blanket as a gift.” The thief was quite bewildered,
but he took the clothing and slunk off. Then Ryokan sat down naked and watched the moon,
saying, “That poor thief, I wish I could give him the gorgeous moonlight.”
Now, in this case, we are given to believe that the thief may have been changed by the
Zen master’s generosity, for the story says the thief slunk off. The thief, in other words, despite
being a thief, had some conscience.
Page 5
But what if you’re dealing with people who have no conscience – people who say,
“You’re going to turn the other cheek? GREAT! Then I can hit you again and again and again!”
What about people who will take from your nonresistance the lesson that treating people like
doormats works pretty well?
For that situation I have another little story about a woodcutter who enters a forest and
seems to be very troubled. And one of the trees asks her, “Can I help you with something?” And
the woodcutter says, “Yeah, I’m looking for a tough piece of wood, because the handle on my
axe is broken.” And the tree says, “Well, I’m made of tough wood. You can have one of my
branches.” And the woodcutter says, “Thanks” and takes the branch and fits it to her axe. And
what do you think she does then, now that her axe is fixed?
Right. She cuts down the rest of the tree – and eventually the rest of the forest. How did
that help the generous tree or any other tree for that matter? I say, in cases where turning the
other cheek (or other branch, in this case) is destructive either to you or to others you shouldn’t
do it. In fact, we have a word for that kind of behavior. We call it “enabling.”
People need to have consequences for their bad behavior, and I don’t think we do anyone
a favor when we encourage thoughtless people to continue to be thoughtless, or pave the way for
insensitive clods to continue to hurt others.
The only caveat I would mention (though) is that sometimes it can be hard to know the
difference.[/quote]

i like the ideas.
by resisting with wisdom: you're not being a doormat, and not proactively giving the enemy a foot as most christian say Jesus meant (yet most do not really believe it).
yet still not returning violence for violence's sake, that traditional message is still intact.

Edited May 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Paddington]

[Groo the Wanderer]

Too Long, Separate Threads, Be Concise