John Dominic Crossan wrote an interesting book Jesus and the violence of Scripture. Maybe as a member of the Jesus Seminar many will just discredit him on that basis alone but he is a world class scholar and well respected in the field.
It seems Jesus taught non-violent resistance and to love one’s enemies. As a a Christian I follow Christ. Jesus was the image of God on earth and if any part of any book of the Bible is inconsistent with that image, I will reject it. Pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek and love your enemies is a long way away from the blood soaked Jesus on the war-horse of Revelation and “happy is he who dashes your infants on the rocks.” Matthew makes it clear Jesus rose into Jerusalem on a peace donkey (two of them).
Some people want to take apocalyptic language completely literally. That is about as sensible as reading Genesis 1-11 in the same manner.
Hi Vinnie, thanks for the kind reply. I like how Longman states that at this stage in history the church is forbidden from taking up the sword. However, he does see what happened with the herem in the OT as an intrusion of end time ethics. Jesus is the Lion and the Lamb, and there are harsh realities he almost assuredly in your view still spoke about. The weeping and gnashing of teeth for instance.
And turning the other cheek is a marvelously subtle form of civil disobedience. “You will hit me as an equal” is how I heard it taught. I’m more than willing to stand corrected on this if you are able to show me there was not a cultural significance for a person to be struck on the “right” cheek
“Civil disobedience” seems odd considering there is no actual disobedience involved. NT Wright reads a lot of Jesus this way and the NT but I think he goes beyond the evidence. It’s non-violent resistance but let us not over-dramatize it by thinking Jesus was some sort of violent anarchist. That is being woven from whole cloth.
I’d like to specifically consider what Jesus meant by turning the other cheek. The picture, as I heard it taught, is that someone who is socially or politically superior to you hits you as if you were beneath them. By turning the left cheek, as they would strike an equal, you are challenging their position of perceived authority over you.
Yes, that’s how I’ve heard it explained also. Exposing the left cheek is forcing the aggressor not to hit with a “back-handed slap of shame” but directly with the right hand. The first strike was a degrading slap of a master to a slave, of a dominant to a subordinate. The second hit would subvert this human hierarchy of treating others within prescribed social roles, forcing the aggressor to look you in the eyes as an equal human (so to speak) before making a decision to strike again.
Yes, and it is interesting in the apocalyptic picture of Jesus in Revelation, his robe is blood-soaked BEFORE he engages in battle. In other words, his robe is soaked not with the blood of his enemies, but with his own blood, given freely in self-sacrifice.
Thanks. It has been awhile since I heard that. I wouldn’t have bet a great deal on the source today, but it has stuck with me over the years. Recently someone insulted me, and I was able to turn the other cheek by admitting I don’t know many things, but was still able to push back figuratively speaking.
No doubt it was socially unacceptable then, and apologists today will at times be unacceptable according to current norms. It doesn’t mean you harass people as the thread is about, but neither do you apologize or back down. Much like as it is done here when a YEC wants to bring the “science”
Yes, being non-violent doesn’t mean being a doormat and doing nothing. I think one can stand up for what one believes in a conversation, but with a tone of respecting the other person’s humanity and intellect (if not their point of view). And knowing when to stop forcing an issue when it is unwanted. That respect is sometimes hard to keep when an argument gets heated, I’ve crossed the line in a few conversations with atheist colleagues in the past, and have had to apologize to them later.
It appears to be widely accepted that striking a person on the right cheek was an exceptionally grievous insult back then:
5:39. The blow on the right cheek (e.g., Job 16:10; Lam 3:30) was the most grievous insult in the ancient world (apart from inflicting serious physical harm), and in many cultures was listed alongside the “eye for an eye” laws; both Jewish and Roman law permitted prosecution for this offense. A prophet might endure such ill treatment (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron 18:23; Is 50:6).
The symbolism of Jesus’ red robe in pictures is varied:
On the one hand, there is the Old Testament “red heifer sacrifice” tradition, according to which water containing a sacrificed red heifer’s ashes purified whoever and whatever it was sprinkled on.
In Isaiah 63:1-3 we read:
“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool."
So, to some Jesus’ red robe can represent the sins which he took upon himself…
In Isaiah 63:1-3, we read of God’s vengeance against His enemies and His redemption of His chosen ones:
Who is this coming from Edom, from Bozrah, with his garments stained crimson? Who is this, robed in splendor, striding forward in the greatness of his strength? “It is I, proclaiming victory, mighty to save.” 2 Why are your garments red, like those of one treading the winepress? 3 “I have trodden the winepress alone; from the nations no one was with me. I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothing.
In this passage, the blood spattered and stained clothing is the consequence of God’s vengence against His enemies and His redemption of His people.
The sharp sword at Jesus’ mouth in pictures have their origin in the Greek New Testament:
Hebrews 4:12: For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to [e]judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
In Greek, a “two-edged sword” was a μάχαιρα [sword] δίστομος [two-mouthed]. Both edges were sharp and cut entering and exiting a body.
The Greek Revelation of John uses the “two-edged sword” symbol in several places.
No surprise then that medieval paintings of Jesus clothed him in red or gave him a red robe; and added a two-edged sword at the mouth of the One whom John called “the Word”.
The NLT is interpreting, not translating (which is why I reject it as a useful version for Bible study): there is no “other” in there, it merely says “Let him give his cheek”. This seems to follow someone striking, but it doesn’t specify the manner of striking, so it could be a punch in the nose or in the gut, or a kick to a knee for that matter. The spirit of the idea seems to be the same, though.
“Back then” being a period of at least two millennia in the ancient near east, though it carried over into all the areas Hellenized thanks to Alexander the Great and later into Rome. I vaguely recall translating something about it in one of the ancient near eastern languages, I’m thinking Egyptian (but wouldn’t swear to it) to the effect that since the back of the hand was not made for striking, using it to do so was meant as seriously degrading, a sort of statement that the target wasn’t worthy of being treated as human.
All translation involves interpretation which involves making inferences about the intended meaning. Words aren’t meaning units, so, as a professional Bible translator, might I kindly suggest that your theory of translation, and the theory of cognition and communication it is based on, is outdated and not supported up by cognitive science.