well, alright…the rubric above is the cleaned up, crude line by denzel washington in the movie, training day. remember? he was talkin’ to ethan hawke after they “jacked” and killed denzel’s character’s supposed “buddy.” so young ethan, the good cop, found himself in an ethical dilemma, you might say…”i didn’t sign up for this,” he says, “i thought we were to protect and serve.” denzel says essentially, “look if you want to be a ‘noc,’ promoted, then you got play the game of my ‘team.’” then he proceeds to inform him that he gave him pcp earlier that day…that’s “cold” d. but hey hollywood liked it, they gave you an oscar for this, rather than your exemplary role as Malcolm X…
oh well, reader, maybe you don’t remember (and if you do, you may be distinctly peculiar [weird like me])…so on to the subject at hand:
i received the following sincere question from a friend in my inbox, and just decided to post my response. i chuckle ‘cause i remember having the same types of struggles with literalism and allegory in text interpretation during my nascent christianity…given: i’m still convinced that at certain times texts can have a range of meanings/applications for individuals depending on the need as spiritually discerned; however, there are certain devices and rules of interpretation that are more static and thus have significant utility for the serious biblical student…anyway here’s my hasty response:
the text: luke 6.29-35
29 if anyone strikes you on the cheek offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30 give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 35 but love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. your reward will be great, and you will be children of the most high; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
the heartfelt prayer and question by a friend:
“father, upon reading this, it went against all my natural instincts, and still does. when you tell me to turn the other cheek, do you mean that literally, figuratively or both? so, if someone decides to attack me i should give them no resistance…i should just let them assault me or my family?! and if, under any circumstances, someone takes my coat, then i am to give them my shirt also? if someone steals or takes from me, i shouldn’t ask for it back? can i not even exercise that which man’s laws would allow and take them to court? father, if i give to everyone who asks then what will i have left and how much am i to give to them, some, all? are you telling me to give to every person on the street w/ a sign and then trust you to provide for me?! lord, if i give to everyone who asks then what will i have left to give? won’t i then become the one asking, begging? no father, i am not doubting your ability to provide and or replenish. i am simply trying to understand your word so that i might be obedient in teaching it and applying it. because, at least at first glance, it appears that you are telling me that if a known drug addict asks me for money and then my best friend and my enemy asks me for money, i am to lend to them all and never ask for it back! would that then make me a good steward or a bad one? your word also teaches us to save and invest, but if i am giving it all away, how can i do that?”
my unedited response:
hey, brother, do forgive me for taking this long to respond. the only real excuse i have is that i didn’t read it completely; hence, i didn’t realize the pressing query here…
it’s understandable, your question, that is…
at first readings, one could easily take this literal approach in trying to apply it to his/her life, but this is not implying that this is a figurative teaching either….
in short, this teaching is about magnanimity and generosity. but not to be mistaken with foolhardiness…we christian folk often fall into this trap…so let me here just offer some thoughts:
1.) this passage, taken in context with the whole of biblical revelation, should not mean that u allow yourself to be taken advantage of, or you not defend urself
for instance, the turning the other cheek metaphor that jesus uses is his hyperbole…think of it, when we say it we don’t mean, “hey, come punch me, then i’m gonna give you my other cheek to punch me too” hell no… i mean one should at least put their hands up to protect themselves…but of course, i’m not a pacifist anyway, so this would be hard for a brotha like me to naively accept anyway…
so, i’d rather propose that this is jesus’ hyperbole for restraint, you know the wisdom literature says it this way: “great is the man who has control over his temper/spirit”; thus the teaching in its essence is that you should be slow to respond in anger, but quick to overlook the offense when possible…much more than physical blows, maybe in other affronts as well, be they non-physical (which is the case more often of being assaulted, right?)…
now jesus exemplifies this by his non-retaliation during his “passion”…in other words, be a person of peace and not quick-tempered is what he says and later embodies, i think…
2.) now giving to everyone who asks, or more literally “begs” is not to mean to do so without discretion…i mean the text here suggests that there may be a discernible need that you might be able to meet…and where it’s sincere, and you have the means…then you should meet it… and to protect against any animosity, never give (even to one who says they are borrowing) expecting them to return payment…always give doing just that: giving it away…
so in short, taking all of these verses together it says, look don’t be vindictive towards enemies, even just show the way of love…..forgiving, giving and forbearance…
is it wise for you to give more wine to a drunkard? …of course, not…is it wise to give your resources (time, energies or knowledge for that matter) to someone known for being profligate, wasteful and maybe unappreciative…no…
also, if you are known as a person of peace, it’s not likely that many will attack you (verbally or physically)…and if many attack you (physically i mean) ur throwing punches back ain’t gon help much anyway…lol…
so our god certainly calls us to be wise and thinking…the lesson of the passage is then, again, long-suffering, generosity (reasoned), and noble-mindedness when dealing with hateful others…
the rewards of living in these essences are greater than the alternative, jesus suggests…
hope this helps some bro., let me know what u’d like to interrogate further, though….
i send this hastily cause i’ve taken so long, and was moved to respond after sitting here to read it finally…sigh…
blessings, bro
me (not CVT)…
you might want to add that in this time and place, (i think you scholars call it the sitzem liben) the jews were the oppressed people and non-citizens and could be compelled to service for the romans. thus physical retaliation was not a resonable course of action. but perhaps by turning the other cheek, surrendering one’s shirt and going the additional mile the oppressed person moves from the position of weakness to strength, in essence wresting the power from the oppressor.
and as I’m learning from Howard Thurman, love is the most powerful weapon and means of retaliation there is.
yeah, thanks so much for appending, jay, indeed this adds great historical perspective to chew on…and in some way then it seems, especially for those disempowered or dominated, restaint and love could be a type of reflexive agency…could be? at least we’ve certainly seen it expressed and what not in modes of passive resistance and the like…
People – please! Apparently you all are not familiar with “A Pimp Named Slickback.” Not that he has anything to do with Jesus but let’s not forget Jesus’ audience. I believe we are all aware of what a “bitch slap” is. Well, if someone is (considered) beneath you or indignant you would not dare slap this person as if they were an equal. You would (and I pray you wouldn’t) slap them with the back of the hand. Now… if this person were to literally “turn the other cheek” as if to say, I will not resist your abuse, then if you chose to strike them again you would have to do so with the inside of your hand (that which is only for an equal –ie., you’ve brought yourself down a notch by touching them with the inside of your hand). Work through the motion so you know what I’m talking about.
My people, Ghandi did not come up with non-violent retaliation –> Jesus did! Because if a person continues to strike a person who isn’t fighting back they make a monster of themselves. If they continue to steal from someone who doesn’t fight back –> They make a rogue of themselves. Jesus was bascially saying, let them make a fool of themselves. And this is exactly what Ghandi did to the British and what our Black leaders did for America. We showed the world just how monsterous the USA was –> abusing non-
violent people.
The reward that Jesus is talking about takes place on earth not heaven… you get to make a fool out of people. Actually… you allow people to make fools of themselves.
So yes… the text is quite literal, but we have to know the culture and the audience to whom Jesus is speaking. Also, I suppose the question to ask is which would you have been – a Freedom Fighter or a Black Panther. Because you are indeed the starting point for how you read scripture. For a Panther this scripture would seem oppressive. For a Non-Violent Freedom Fighter this scripture is a guide.
Jesus was for protecting one’s self. I don’t have a Bible readily available but there is a text where Jesus says to his disciples (paraphrase) “when I sent you out before I sent you out with nothing, no money bag, no sword, no change of clothes. But now, if you have money get it. If you have a sword get it. Basically, get your s-*- because its about to go down.” And notice — Peter took him seriously!
uhm, well, i think if we had to conjecture if there is one who would be a pacifist in this day, it would probably be jesus…
and a couple of things i’d like to submit on your comments, sis; namely, if one is a Black Panther then philosophically they probably would already be at odds with a jesus ethics in the first place…and two, when jesus was sending out disciples two by two, i believe he said take nothing with you (essentially saying, i’d construe, that you are in god’s care by my authority for your provision and protection), but even without referring to the Scriptures now i’m hard-pressed to recall any instance where jesus says “get it, girl” to paraphrase…
in fact in the gethsemenee (sp) event he told peter, “those who live by the sword shall die by sword…”
peter’s impetuousness, in fact, is often chided in the Scriptures…though his courage often was rewarded…
so yeah, i guess for me i think the day will determine my adherence to the passive mode…that’s my issue…but i’m sure the best mode is to heed to the paliative assertion by which might says, “God will vindicate..”
so say more if you wish sis, i just think i got lost in tryin to follow…
as always though i jus lov ur passion, lol…and u too..
me
Dear Brother,
Its Luke 22:35-38. In this passage, which immediately precedes the Gethsemane event it appears that Jesus instructed his disciples to get ready for whats coming. In this passage (v38) we see Jesus affirming that weapons are needed. And it is also in this chapter that we see weapons being used.
My statement about the method of slapping is taken right from one of Dr. Black’s lectures.
I try not to “hyper-romanticize” Jesus. When I read the text I don’t see a pacifist, I see a meek man – one with strength under control exemplifying when to fight, how to fight, and who to fight. When reading the New Testament in the Greek we have all noted the heavy military language. For this reason, I believe that any person who reads the Biblical text for what it says and takes into consideration the context and the audacity of the One who says it will by all means find a leader that completely for “bucking.”
But again we all read the text, and any text, from a starting point.
I hope this was easier to follow. Then again… I probably shouldn’t be responding while at work.
XOs,
Lil Sis
I don’t know why that smiley face is there. It’s suppose to say v. 38 (thirty-eight).
hmm…yeah, sis, i do think i understand what ur saying better. the murkiness for both of us, however, i think has to do with some of the terms we use. so let me clarify as well that pacifism in the connotation i suggest jesus subscribed to does not negate his radicalism, which is what i think you wish to accent in the crux of your argument…
and i agree with you, jesus was radical and resistant… in fact i agree even more, citing that his execution is a result of the perceived “bucking” as sedition by the roman “powers that be.” i just think we’d disagree over his methodology, which is cool. he just seems to rebuff peter too strongly for me to assent to something contradictory…
and while i would not also want to over-romanticize jesus, i admit though that for me it’d be reductionistic to only view him as a meek man. for me–and i only speak for me–he would have to not only “exemplify” what’s best about humanity but also transcend it. for me, again, much more than just being a man he was (and still is for me) very much god…
his humanity, and thus is ability to be both sympathetic and empathetic to me being in this world is what makes my christianity sustainable….moreover, his divinity though and his ability to transcend my perspective keeps me in the quest to self-transcend. in other words, if i were to reduce him to just being the meek-mannered man that wouldn’t be enough for me to remain in the sect…but this is really more an argument of belief…i just know that i wouldn’t be able to risk all on an historical moralist (which is what he’d otherwise be)…but that’s not incontrovertible for some…..this is just my conviction on the matter:)
now i do sorta despise proof-texting, for that could prove interminable and affronting…so i’ll stay in the speculative realm and not go theological in trying to limn out jesus’s nature…
i will say, since you adduce him, that though respected by many i’m sure, dr. black’s notes certainly don’t offer me any peremptory statements to what i simply proffer (imperfectly even) as one of jesus’ philosophical tenets based on what i see as indicative of his ethics….
but again, let me conclude by saying that, again, it’s just me….
like dennis miller says, “i could be wrong…”
…uh, well, yeah…. could be (smiles)….all things are possible (lol)…
but i love the dialogue…
Maybe useful to distinguish between defense and retaliation–which can further degenerate into revenge.
Defense is reasonable reaction to (one hopes) reduce the injury… good not only for the defender, but for the attackers, who take upon themselves the responsibility (guilt) for damage done.
Retaliation willfully raises the level of violence and
increases the possibility of injury. Retaliation is not reactive. There is a choice. A whole range of possible responses, in fact–that retaliation or revenge erase.
I’m not a Christian, but do believe religious texts are rich sources for interpretation–for thinking about we want to live, what kind of persons we want to be, what kind of society we want create for ourselves. It seems that these words attributed to Jesus lend themselves to the distinctions I’ve made. They don’t make sense applied to a reactive situation–where someone is initiating violence against us. It does, when you have space and time to consider alternatives–where demonstrating good will can relieve the other side of the need for violence.
This applies to Martin Luther King’s use of non-violence. A demonstration in the name of justice, or protesting injustice, grows out of a rational decision to place oneself in potential danger. The reaction has been thought through and determined in advance. Injury is accepted as the price of exposing the injustice, and making it clear to everyone who witnesses the violence, who is the aggressor. The rational acceptance of injury has then the additional power of inviting the opponent to change, by posing no threat, by standing for another way, above all–by not assuming the worst, by crediting the opponent with the possibility of change, change of heart is given more room.
I’ve seen this happen. Going back 45 years… anyway, I hope you don’t mind my thoughts. Few things are more important than figuring out how to respond to violence and aggression. Thinking about the words of men like Jesus, like Dr. King raises a little closer to the kind of person they thought we might become.
no, friend, don’t mind your thoughts at all…thanks so much for taking the time to comment and find them quite helpful…