Poncho, I think you need some more study. Your attempt at explaining the "other cheek" passages is misguided. It means exactly what it sounds like. If someone mistreats you, do not respond in kind, but respond in humility. The way of the cross was radical, in teh first century and now. And most are far too proud to follow the simple humility of Christ.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do Christians Owe Unlimited Submission To Civil Government
- Thread starter poncho
- Start date
One must not forget that the cultural context that, if one responded with humility by giving him the other cheek, ou were, in effect, telling him that his assault on you will not be taken as intended, in effect, resulting in the one struck, not the one striking, being the victor. Indeed, so is the way of the cross. Victory being by way of humility and submission.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Pastor Larry I whole heartedly agree with you on the do not respond in kind, but in humility. That is what Jesus taught to be sure...but He didn't just stop there.
So who were Jesus' listeners and what were the conditions at that time? There is no way you can say look hear at what Jesus said in a sentence or Paul for that matter without putting it all in the perpective of not only the time period but also of the prevailing conditions and customs of that same time period. To do otherwise is to compare apples and oranges.
Jesus did not teach the doctrine of the pharisees He taught the doctrine of God. They didn't seek to kill Him because He preached the gospel they sought to kill Him because His doctrine undermined their influence among the common people...you know the ones they were used to teaching mans doctrines to for their own selfish benefit and walking all over them like so many doormats.
Jesus did not hold His tongue when He reminded them of this...in public in front of witnesses...how many times?
Jesus taught nonviolence to His followers in a way they could understand and use with all humility and submission without being a doormat for evil.
A way to bring to the mind of the opressor his wrong doing and to force him to look at himself and that wrong doing that he might consider changing his behaviour.
Jesus didn't free us on the cross from sin just to make us the doormat of sinners. As you seem to advocate.
So who were Jesus' listeners and what were the conditions at that time? There is no way you can say look hear at what Jesus said in a sentence or Paul for that matter without putting it all in the perpective of not only the time period but also of the prevailing conditions and customs of that same time period. To do otherwise is to compare apples and oranges.
Jesus did not teach the doctrine of the pharisees He taught the doctrine of God. They didn't seek to kill Him because He preached the gospel they sought to kill Him because His doctrine undermined their influence among the common people...you know the ones they were used to teaching mans doctrines to for their own selfish benefit and walking all over them like so many doormats.
Jesus did not hold His tongue when He reminded them of this...in public in front of witnesses...how many times?
Jesus taught nonviolence to His followers in a way they could understand and use with all humility and submission without being a doormat for evil.
A way to bring to the mind of the opressor his wrong doing and to force him to look at himself and that wrong doing that he might consider changing his behaviour.
Jesus didn't free us on the cross from sin just to make us the doormat of sinners. As you seem to advocate.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Imagine if you will not just one slave turning his left cheek after being struck on the right cheek by his master a blow that not only intended cause pain but as an insult to his lowly station in life and that he was owned by another human being.
But, imagine several hundred slaves doing this all over the land after they heard Jesus preach this doctrine at the same time!
That's what got the pharisees so hot under the collar.
But, imagine several hundred slaves doing this all over the land after they heard Jesus preach this doctrine at the same time!
That's what got the pharisees so hot under the collar.
Why? I have already told you that are you misguided on v. 39. It has nothing to do with demanding equality by being slapped as an equal. The whole context of vv. 38-43 is that you don't insist on equality and fairness, an "eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth." That was the old way of doing things. With Christ, when someone slaps you, you don't insist on slapping them; you let them slap you again. When someone takes your coat, you don't sue to get it back; you give them your inner coat as well.
Christ's point throughout Matthew 5 is that the new way of doing things is radically different. You are not grasping that teaching. YOu have distorted it with this strange view of slapping cheeks.
Christ's point throughout Matthew 5 is that the new way of doing things is radically different. You are not grasping that teaching. YOu have distorted it with this strange view of slapping cheeks.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Why? So I could ask you this.
Why would Jesus tell somebody that if they are sued for their outer garment, to also give their inner garment as well, leaving them naked?
Wasn't nakedness looked at as a shame by the Jewish authorities at that time? Wouldn't that be against Jewish law? Wouldn't that contradict your interpretation of Romans 13?
You admit that Christ's point throughout Matthew 5 is a radical new way of doing things. I grasp that fairly well I think.
But what you seem to be be saying is that this radical new way of doing things is the same as the old way of doing things. That in effect Jesus is teaching his followers to do exactly as expected of them from their oppressors. If that is the case here then why turn the other cheek at all? Why not just grovel around in self pity and shame and take all the abuse you can?
Why would Jesus tell somebody that if they are sued for their outer garment, to also give their inner garment as well, leaving them naked?
Wasn't nakedness looked at as a shame by the Jewish authorities at that time? Wouldn't that be against Jewish law? Wouldn't that contradict your interpretation of Romans 13?
You admit that Christ's point throughout Matthew 5 is a radical new way of doing things. I grasp that fairly well I think.
But what you seem to be be saying is that this radical new way of doing things is the same as the old way of doing things. That in effect Jesus is teaching his followers to do exactly as expected of them from their oppressors. If that is the case here then why turn the other cheek at all? Why not just grovel around in self pity and shame and take all the abuse you can?
The point is that we are to respond in love and humiility, not in anger and vengeance. I don't think you grasp the radical nature of the teaching because you are saying that we should insist on our own rights, on equal treatment, etc. Christ says that was the way it was (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). Now he is saying, in your personal relationships be different.
IT is not about groveling in self-pity or taking abuse. Jesus is not teaching them to do what "as expected from their oppressors." Exactly the opposite. The oppressors would expect defense and anger and revenge. Christ was teaching them to do what their oppressors wouldn't expect.
You will have to get some good commentaries and study this issue. I dont' have time to get into all of it here.
IT is not about groveling in self-pity or taking abuse. Jesus is not teaching them to do what "as expected from their oppressors." Exactly the opposite. The oppressors would expect defense and anger and revenge. Christ was teaching them to do what their oppressors wouldn't expect.
You will have to get some good commentaries and study this issue. I dont' have time to get into all of it here.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
If a Christian is being attacked because of his faith, should he allow himself to be beat to death, or should he defend himself?
What does Scripture say?
poncho
Well-Known Member
I'm not missing the point that we are to respond in love and humility and not anger and vegeance. I have said that I agree with you on that.
I'm am trying to make the point that at the time Jesus spoke those words He was not speaking to a people or society that resembles our modern day.
The left hand in that culture was considered to be unclean because of it's use in cleaning up after normal bodily functions. To even gesture with the left hand during Qumran would get you ten days penance.
To strike someone on the right cheek would have required the use of the right hand, the only way that can be done is with a backhand slap. That was at that time the execpted way of admonishing an inferior.
Masters backanded slaves, husbands backhanded wives, parents backhanded children. They did not backhand those considered to be equals. Jesus was speaking to people that were well aware of this and were the very same ones that were considered inferior and was on the recieving end of all the backhanded slapping.
This was not only intented to cause pain as I have said before, but also to be a form of humiliation and to reinforce the idea that the person being slapped was to be held in lower a reguard.
Those being slapped around in this fashion never had any hope of responding in anything other way but crouching in fear and submission. To do otherwise was clearly understood to be suicide.
To turn the other cheek would never have been excepted as a sign of submission.
I'm am trying to make the point that at the time Jesus spoke those words He was not speaking to a people or society that resembles our modern day.
The left hand in that culture was considered to be unclean because of it's use in cleaning up after normal bodily functions. To even gesture with the left hand during Qumran would get you ten days penance.
To strike someone on the right cheek would have required the use of the right hand, the only way that can be done is with a backhand slap. That was at that time the execpted way of admonishing an inferior.
Masters backanded slaves, husbands backhanded wives, parents backhanded children. They did not backhand those considered to be equals. Jesus was speaking to people that were well aware of this and were the very same ones that were considered inferior and was on the recieving end of all the backhanded slapping.
This was not only intented to cause pain as I have said before, but also to be a form of humiliation and to reinforce the idea that the person being slapped was to be held in lower a reguard.
Those being slapped around in this fashion never had any hope of responding in anything other way but crouching in fear and submission. To do otherwise was clearly understood to be suicide.
To turn the other cheek would never have been excepted as a sign of submission.
And I am saying that you completely misunderstand turning the other cheek. It has nothign to do with backhands or forehands. It is nothing about insisting that someone "slap you as an equal." That is to completely miss the point.
poncho
Well-Known Member
And I am just trying to understand what meaning Jesus' words actually had to His listeners at the time those words were actually spoken by putting the scene in a social context that accounts for the customs, laws, and excepted practices at that time in history and not trying to fit them into a 20th century context by ignoring the prevailing and excepted customs at the time of Christ.
I have already told you what meaning they have. Get out the commentaries if you doubt me. The plain meaning is the meaning. The historical social context does not change that.
poncho
Well-Known Member
"The plain meaning is the meaning. The historical social context does not change that"
And you know this to be fact because you have already taken the historical and social context of those folks that actually heard those words come from the lips of Jesus and considered it seriously how they would have understood them at that time in history under the conditions they lived. Is this correct?
And you know this to be fact because you have already taken the historical and social context of those folks that actually heard those words come from the lips of Jesus and considered it seriously how they would have understood them at that time in history under the conditions they lived. Is this correct?
Yes, that is correct. All you need to do is read and study on this. Virtually the commentators are in agreement.
poncho
Well-Known Member
I've had a chance to look at Matthew Henry's commentary on Mat 5:39. If all the commentaries agree as you say (and I believe you) I can see how it is that you feel there is no diference between a "right cheek", "left" cheek or a nose.
Jesus thought it important enought to specify the "right" cheek. He didn't just say cheek He said the "right" cheek in particular. He also didn't say nose or jaw or a cuff to right or left ear. He said "right" cheek.
If Jesus thought it was important to specify which cheek a person is struck upon, then we (me you and Matthew Henry) should try to understand why. Jesus didn't pick His words haphazardly He chose them with the knowledge of God.
Jesus thought it important enought to specify the "right" cheek. He didn't just say cheek He said the "right" cheek in particular. He also didn't say nose or jaw or a cuff to right or left ear. He said "right" cheek.
If Jesus thought it was important to specify which cheek a person is struck upon, then we (me you and Matthew Henry) should try to understand why. Jesus didn't pick His words haphazardly He chose them with the knowledge of God.
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
A few good quotes:
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." -Patrick Henry
"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind." -James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
"For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them." -John Calvin(Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." -Patrick Henry
"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind." -James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
"For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them." -John Calvin(Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)