I have always had a problem with the interpretation/attitude that was always conveyed by this statement Jesus stated. It just never REALLY "resonated" with me.

Then a week or so ago, I was watching one of the "Discovery" or possibly "History" Channels and there was an interpretation that DID resonate w/me.

As I have 1000+ irons in the fire, I'm hoping someone might have some insight. As I doubt I will have time to study it out before sometime early next year.

Basically, the program said that "back in the day" (of Jesus) one struck one's "inferiors" (women, chilren, others "beneath" you) with the "back of the hand" and that the word used, suggested that the "slap" (strike?) word used was the word for THAT kind of "strike" so instead of a TOTALLY "pacifist" connotation, the suggestion of offering the other cheek is to have them recognize/acknowledge you as an equal.... still "pacifist" but w/an "uppity" slant which seems to resonate a bit better w/me...

So insights? Comments? Other "takes" on what Jesus meant?

Thanks.

You are allowed to defend yourself to the death, but revenge, retaliation, and bitterness
must be avoided at all costs.

A slap is an insult, you cannot claim self defense against an insult.

Common law and much of today's criminal law regarding self defense state exactly the same thing.





If all you read was the Bible, you would have some good information no doubt, but if you read
other books you would know much more about it.

In the scripture Christ states

"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."

On the surface it sounds like pacifism, but read history for more :

Commonly invoked Roman law allowed a Roman soldier to demand that citizens of occupied territories carry the soldier's military gear for one mile, but prohibited the soldier from forcing an individual to go further than one mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.

So knowing that, now re-read what Christ said. Makes it an entirely different idea doesn't it?




ETA:  Edited again, my comments were aimed at one person only.  Here is scriptural proof
for my contention above, that's all I intend with this.

Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16
Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29
Romans 12:17-21 Ephesians 4:31 1 Peter 2:23

Basically, the program said that "back in the day" (of Jesus) one struck one's "inferiors" (women, chilren, others "beneath" you) with the "back of the hand" and that the word used, suggested that the "slap" (strike?) word used was the word for THAT kind of "strike" so instead of a TOTALLY "pacifist" connotation, the suggestion of offering the other cheek is to have them recognize/acknowledge you as an equal.... still "pacifist" but w/an "uppity" slant which seems to resonate a bit better w/me...

If you look at the context of the passage, it's really clear that the point is not to be 'uppity'.  Yes, we do defend ourselves and families against evil, but 'turning the other cheek' is not to be an insult to them or to prove that you are an equal.

Be careful about trying to make Scripture agree with you.  There are a lot of passages that you and I won't like because we're fallen, sinful creatures.  The point is to be conformed to what the Bible requires, not try to interpret it in a way we like.

Besides, are you really trusting the Discovery channel for Bible interpretation?

You are correct Kacer, turning the other cheek was a sign that the other person was NOT your superior.  And since most people were right handed they slapped people on the right side of their face.  So if you turned the other cheek they really can't slap you all that easily.  So when Jesus turned the other cheek He was telling those people that He was more important then they were.

Sgat1r5

Quoted: Besides, are you really trusting the Discovery channel for Bible interpretation?

It does not sound like the program did that, but rather explain the historical times of the day.

Sgat1r5

actions speak louder than words.

if you want to know what He meant, look at what He did.

the ultimate "slap on the cheek" was His crucifixion, and did He get "uppity" with those who were murdering Him?

did He become aggressive?  did He insult them?

no, He said "Forgive Them Lord: they know not what they do"

Quoted: no, He said "Forgive Them Lord: they know not what they do"

Actually, I believe that was in referance to the fact that those that killed Him where fullfilling the O.T.


Plenty of examples in the Bible where Jesus got angry.

PLENTY.

Sgat1r5

Quoted: actions speak louder than words. if you want to know what He meant, look at what He did. the ultimate "slap on the cheek" was His crucifixion, and did He get "uppity" with those who were murdering Him? did He become aggressive?  did He insult them? no, He said "Forgive Them Lord: they know not what they do"

Well if you believe that is what was meant, then you must allow murderers and rapists
to come into your home and do what they please, with no response from you.
Anf if you believe that what are you doing on a pro-gun web site?

I don't think that the Crucifixion was a pacifist act.    Christ suffered so the rest of us
didn't have to, and there is plenty of Scriptural evidence to support a policy
of self defense when attacked.

****Deleted****<va-gunnut>