I dislike presenting half-baked blog-posts but I don't have anything better than this today. So bear with me. I might never get a full resolution on this issue.
Matthew 5:38,39 reads
As a modern man reading this in 2026, it seems so very wrong. As a parent who has had to display "tough love" at times, it seems very wrong.
I read some commentaries. I read Chapter 5 several times for context and am still working to reconcile this quote with what I believe about humans.
Commentary
The most commentary by assorted preachers is that "slap" is to be interpreted as "an insult to our dignity or honor" similar to Black culture's "I have been disrespected". Their take on the verse is that Jesus is telling us to not escalate conflict but to ignore the insult.
Context, Part I
That is very consistent with the vignettes that are immediately before this verse. All of them are some version of slippery-slope situations with the possibility where escalation is a natural and logical consequence. Jesus is telling us that are morally liable when we start down those paths.
That interpretation is also diametrically opposed to the interpretation of the radical pacifists who say this verse tells us that we must passively submit to evil and let God sort it all out on Judgement Day. We know from history that refusal to confront institutionalized evil allows it to flourish. That is the opposite of the meta-message about natural and logical outcomes.
Context, Part II
I think there is much value in thinking about the audience Jesus was speaking to. He was in Galilee which was a rural backwater.
Towns, such as there were, were tiny.
Archeological digs determined that the Nazareth of Jesus's day consisted of fifty foundations, not all of which were used for human habitation. Estimates in the 1800's was a population of 2000-to-2500. That has since been revised downward to 200-to-480.
Having seem images of the foundations of Roman era Capernum in Israel and measured them using Google Earth, it is hard to imaging 10 people living in a one-room house that measures 12'-by-8' so my gut-feel is that the number is closer to 200 than the 480 number.
Given the populations of those towns and the extreme lack of social mobility, i.e. they couldn't just let their lease lapse and move to L.A., the impact of people with Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorders would be enormous because it would be impossible to escape them. A typical town of 200 people would have three of these toxic people since the base-rate is about 1.5% of the population.
If you were to ask nearly any of the people in the audience listening to Jesus at the time "Can you name one person who is 'Evil'?" they would almost certainly name one of those three people in their village (maybe all three!). They would be unlikely to mention Harod the Great, Tiberius Caesar or Donald J. Trump. Those people were as far removed from their daily lives as mythical creatures like mermaids.
Those people thrive on the energy they "create" through digs and insults. They crave it. They cannot live without it. If you feed the troll, the troll gets bigger and more powerful. If you ignore them they are diminished.
If you "feed" them, they will torment you.
In today's society
It is my belief that the base-rate of Cluster B Personality Disorders is increasing rapidly. Our brains are very plastic and respond to our environments. The internet and social media rewards the trolls. It feeds them. They reproduced like mosquitoes after a hurricane.
Summary
My relationship with these Bible verses continues to evolve. My current stance on them is that Jesus is telling me to shun people who act in toxic ways when I am present. My interacting with them is harmful to me and it is harmful to them.
It does not mean that Jesus is telling me that I cannot exercise "tough love". It does not mean that I cannot respond with force to evil people who threaten life-and-limb. It does not mean that I must vote for judges and prosecutors who refuse to exercise legitimate, legal penalties against people who earned them.
If that one verse is taken at face value verbatim - the the Bible and Christianity effectively becomes a suicide cult. And if I were a demon spouting scripture to deceive - that one verse would be the first one I'd pull every time. Matthew did NOT write that verse to enable evil.
ReplyDeleteG@d gave his Angles Swords to fight evil.
ReplyDeleteJesus is quoted as saying to swap your cloak for a sword.
Jesus weapon of choses was a whip.
It is ok to fight evil.
While Jesus is not quoted as saying this, the encouragement in Ephesians 6:11-13 to "Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes..." certainly doesn't seem like passively taking what is dished out by evil, rather fight against it as best we can, even in ways that might seem trivial. Seems that if we curl up in a corner against evil, all hope is lost in this world...
ReplyDelete"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Attributed to many including John Stuart Mills and Reverend Charles F. Aked.
DeleteYour analysis provides deep thought! I like the way you think. Perhaps you'd continue to share your reflections on this tangent... considering the likely oral to written processes, (historically) questionable authorship, various translation paths, and conflicting wisdom presented, maybe not every line we read from the Good Book, is written precisely as the original thought that produced that line. Thus, it is up to us to discover and discern our own individual morality given the big picture... as you are doing.
ReplyDeleteThe invitation to "share my reflections" is like tossing me a two-liter bottle filled with hot nitroglycerine. I am not sure that I would survive the exercise.
DeleteDancing around your invitation: various cults and off-shoots publish their own versions of "The Bible" where they leave out or modify verses that don't fit with their beliefs. For example: The Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity so they watered down verses that mention them. There are other splinter groups that claim that "True Christianity was lost....until we refound it" which is a direct contradiction of Matt 28:20...and no surprise; the "Bibles" in their pews show a fiddling with that particular verse.
That contrasts with "Protestant" translations where the Bread of Life passages in Chapter 6 are translated even though much of the text is not consistent with Protestant beliefs about Transubstantiation (the changing of bread and wine into the actual body-and-blood of Jesus Christ, albeit the wafer and wine still physically resembling a cracker and wine).
The better question, in my mind is "What does this passage in the Bible tell me about God's divine will as I read it today?" rather than "How might this have been corrupted as it passed through, fallible, human hands." I think most people who regularly pick up and read the Good Book report that they never read the same book twice. Meaning that what they see in the text and the images it paints in their minds change every time they read it because the reader has changed.
Given enough time, most people will shit on you.
ReplyDeleteSo very true
DeleteMatthew 5:38,39 was reinterpreted by Thomas Aquinas, who acknowledged the self-preservation instinct. He found using minimum, but all necessary, violence against an attacker to stop an attack completely morally justifiable.
ReplyDeleteAquinas’ moral insight is called the 'Principle of Double Effect': single actions can have multiple outcomes. Harming an aggressor while defending an innocent life is an example. Aquinas found the morality of violent action depends upon intention. He held killing is never morally acceptable when killing is the sole intent. Killing as an unintended secondary effect of self defense is always fully justifiable.
Consequently, current Catholic teaching is that a Catholic may use deadly force to defend one’s own life or the lives of others without committing a sin.
From 'the bible project'
ReplyDeleteThe Cheek Slap in Jesus’ Day
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
I have heard that striking the right cheek was typically a backhand slap and very insulting and degrading. By offering the left cheek, they would have to slap you with an open hand thereby restoring your dignity.
ReplyDeleteGoing the extra mile - Roman law at the time said a soldier could compel anyone to carry their burden for a mile (degrading them.)
After a mile a soldier could be punished if someone carried it further. By offering to carry another mile, you force the soldier to ask/plead for his burden back so he doesn't get in trouble. Him asking you, restores your dignity.
Giving both the tunic and cloak (shirt/coat). If the Roman soldiers demanded one, it degrades you but if you offer and give them both, it degrades him because he has caused you to become naked.
There were circumstances in those days that everyone understood.
I only heard these things in the last 3 months watching (sam shamoun) videos.
sam
Considering the culture, being slapped with the palm of the left hand would be more insulting. The left hand was used for wiping one's butt. Slapping is what men do to women. So slapping a man with the palm of the left hand would be demonstrating that they were a whore...i.e. an unclean woman.
DeleteBut cultural things like that are difficult to psych-out from 2000 years distance. I am just spit-balling.
I believe that here Jesus in not talking about the "Lex Talionis" which was the eye for an eye etc., but how to deal with insults. As mentioned, the back handed slap was the worst possible insult. By offering the other cheek instead of snapping back at the person, it was following the example of Jesus who was repeatedly insulted by the scribes and their allies, but He never snapped back at them.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Jesus was talking about a physical attack at this time. He advised His followers to buy swords if they did not have them. Swords were not meant to be tooth picks but weapons. Weapons to defend ourselves and others.
Your mileage may vary...
Of late, I have thought this scripture means someone is getting mooned. . .
ReplyDeleteI always understood the "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was a constraint on those enforcing the law in that it means that the punishment must be proportionate to the offence.
ReplyDeleteIn modern times, wealthy people committing heinous offences get a "Tsk, tsk. Boys will be boys" thanks to various methods (lawyers, social connections and corrupt judges etc.). Those not wealthy enough to hire lawyers and cannot either bribe judges or don't have the social connections get jailed for minor offences.
Murder someone if you are wealthy, it is probation, psychological evaluations and fines. Drop a candy bar wrapper, jailed and you lose your job, home and possessions and your life is ruined. Certainly NOT "an eye for an eye", is it?
Phil B
Context is everything. Both a constraint and an approved action at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThe previous chapter Exo. 20 gives the Ten Commandments. So Chapter 21 deals with punishment by judges for any violations of the Commandments : Expressly 'eye for eye' means the punishment must be equal to the crime: not lighter or greater. People use this verse to justify their taking revenge which is wrong. Jesus is saying 'turn the cheek' is how we should treat others - NOT criminals or enemy nations. There is in no context to support pacifism or allow someone to hurt you. We forgo retaliation for personal offenses by acting to show love in-spite of their actions.
ReplyDelete