What if we called it a psuedo-translation? 
Of course, the same people not infrequently also tortured and killed their opponents. On the whole, Iâm happier with our current hypersensitive culture.
3 Likes
Interesting that even in depictions of early American times, a challenge to a duel is preceded by a slap on cheek, often by a glove. I think Jesus was saying one should respond in humility rather than violence in his day as well.
2 Likes
For me given that eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth was about their judicial system I think those verses are mostly on not seeking revenge. Self defense vs seeking revenge are very different motives even if itâs the same actions. Same for the coat verse. I agree violence should not be our only response or first one but I donât see self defense being cast aide.
3 Likes
That a good point and in the context of the situations Jesus describes, a corrupt judicial process or an overreach of governmental authority, self-defense would not be an option like it is when the offense is perpetuated outside the law or in a lawless state of nature
1 Like
What I was leaning towards was that the verses âeye for an eyeâ was not a light fighting. It was not restricting what you do if someone is trying to kill you. For a factâŚ. Eye for an eye also applied to things like of the owner of a ox attacked someone and they lost an eye. There was a lot of rules and regulations.
Under Moses the events went like this. Something happened , regardless if it was a fight or one of many other things and one person lost their eye.
Now that they have lost an eye, they can go before the priests and basically file a suit/charges. If the other man was found guilty, they would remove an eye. The justice system they focused on was primarily revenge.
So when Jesusâs says turn the other cheek heâs not telling someone if someone is on top of you and stabs you, turn your head so that they can stab you in the other side too. Whatâs heâs referring to is that someone who suffered a wrong by their brother should not go before the priests seeking revenge but instead forgive them as youâve been forgiven. Paul also noted though that itâs not a sin necessarily thought to seek legal action.
So if someone broke into my house and tried to kill me and i survived I should not then plan on seeking them out for revenge. I should forgive them. Though I also would be free to, and would do so, call the cops and have them arrested. But if it was Anna rice attack, and he was trying to stab me, heâs perfectly fine if I shoot him. I would do my best to not kill them and so on.
2 Likes
I think itâs important to highlight the scenarios that Jesus describes in turning the other cheek are such that you have no reasonable means of preventing the offense. After getting hit, you could do nothing and just suck it up or you could bitterly kick the dirt, or you can turn the other cheek, strip off your garment, or go the extra mile.
@Christy Iâve heard that the whole word-for-word vs. thought-for-though continuum is more about marketing Bibles than explaining how Bible translation actually works. I know it is a little off-topic, but would be interested in your professional take on that.
1 Like
Good topic for a new post. I am currently reading Waltonâs Wisdom and Faithful Reading book, and it is interesting. I may post about that as well, as a little different than translation, though translation issues come into play.
1 Like
17 âWhoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animalâs life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. 22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.â ~ Leviticus 24:17-22 (NIV)
38 âYou have heard that it was said, âEye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. ~ Matthew 5:38-42 (NIV)
My understanding is that the Leviticus passage is not about revenge but proportional consequences. The heart of the passage is that the punishment should fit the crime. The rich canât pay their way out of the murder of the poor, and neither can the sojourner be put to death for accidentally injuring a powerful individual. Nor can a poor worker lose their home for the death of an employerâs animal. Each shall be treated with fairness and justice regardless of race, gender, wealth, or social standing.
In the Matthew passage, Jesus seems to flip this on its head. It seems to be that rather than seeking to get your own back, you instead publicly shame them through your actions. They hit you, let them hit you again. They want your iPhone to offer your wallet too. etc. I think Jesusâ point, as in the whole Sermon on the Mount is to explore what a wisdom-driven life looks like for Godâs New Creation people. âWe do things differently here folksâ.
4 Likes
Great idea. The two could be rolled into a Bible Translation and Interpretation Mega-Thread. We could then merge all future topics on similar lines into it.
Iâll start with a limited scope of discussion and see how it goes. Perhaps the mega-thread would be helpful, as it seems all posts seem to go wide, but will attempt a more focused one at first.
1 Like
Yes, itâs a dinstinction invented by US Bible publishers, itâs not something that comes from actual translation theory. And the whole idea of âword for wordâ translation (at least from Greek) applies to English in ways it doesnât apply to other languages/cultures, because both English and Greek are Indo-European languages that share many linguistic features, and the cultural frames and rhetorical patterns of written English have been shaped by Greek/Western thought patterns. Unless you are intending to provide a gloss (which isnât a translation), all translation involves trying to access the intended meaning (ie, the âthoughtâ) and re-communicate it in a different cultural and linguistic context.
2 Likes
Thanks for explaining the principle of proportional consequences. You said that way better than I could have.
Now I think itâs important to emphasize that the instruction Jesus is giving applies to situations where you are practically incapable of resisting the evil person. Jesus is not saying to give a person your wallet if they have taken your phone when you werenât looking. Thy have sued you in a court and the law is being misrepresented. These are misrepresentations of justice that you are specifically pushing back against. Now if you think it is wise to suffer a crime and not call the police then that is a personal decision that I simply donât see Jesus talking about.
Also, I seem to remember Jesusâ saying âyou have heard that it was saidâ was in reference not to the Law but to where taking vengeance into your own hands had become acceptable.
Oh dear. So (according to what you just said) it sounds like all Jesusâ nonviolence and âdonât hit backâ teachings only apply to the weak and vulnerable who wouldnât be able to successfully do anything else anyway. But if you can hit back, or you are in a position of relative strength compared to your would-be oppressor ⌠then go for it!
Is that about the sum of the new American âgospelâ? Donât get me wrong - weâre definitely 99% of us there. Nobody wants to be a doormat. But nor do I confuse what Jesus taught with anything easy.
6 Likes
To me revenge and proportional punishment is the same. Itâs not about to to react in the situation. Itâs about the rules of after the event. After all, a corpse is not going to come back and kill his murder. Itâs all about their punishment. If revenge is a word someone does not like, then it can be changed to charges, punishment or whatever. Itâs all the same.
What Jesus is not saying is never defend yourself. Allow them to do whatever and then encourage them to do more. A lot of people use these verses as proof texts to allow someone to harm others. But Jesus, nor the law, was talking about self defense. It was their rules on how to carry out punishment and Jesus does turn that punishment on its head. If someone stabs me in the stomach, and I end up in the hospital, or if someone rips out my eyeball, once Iâm out of the hospital, and file a witness report, Jesus does not want me to rip out their eyeball.
However, Jesus would be ok with me breaking their hand and preventing them from ripping out my eyeball. I donât have to just lay there and let them rip out my eyeball. I donât have to sit there and let someone stomp my teeth in, bust my ribs and so on.
The fact Jesus allowed it to happen to him also does not matter. He told the disciples to buy a few swords after all. He was ok with them defending themselves. Just donât seek revenge, and revenges as punishment, on those who wrong them.
1 Like
- Iâm reminded of Oliver Wendell Holmesâ words: âVengeance imports a feeling of blame and an opinion, however distorted by passion, that a wrong has been done. It can hardly go very far beyond the case of a harm intentionally inflicted; even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked âŚThe early English appeals for personal violence seem to have been confined to intentional wrongs.â
- And, IMO, Jesus was simply saying: âDonât bite back.â
3 Likes
- On the other hand, allowing someone to turn my wife into a widow or my children into orphans wouldnât make sense to me.
4 Likes
Jesus or Paul or John, I donât recall, also specifically say not to take vengeance. That is donât hit back, which means it is the role of the civil magistrate to bear the sword. This doesnât contradict the need for self-defense either.