Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Question about meaning of turning cheek | Matt 5:39 | Morant61 | 89642 | ||
Greetings Chusarcik! I have heard that interpetation but I don't buy it. Here is why: Each of the items mentioned in Mt. 5:38-42 deals with an issue of civil rights. The issue is one of personal civil rights. In contrast to the Jews who taught vengence, Jesus calls us to be 'extra mile' people. For instance, striking someone on the check was a great personal public insult. The 'eye for eye' philosphy would be to strike them back and avenge one's self of this affront. But, Jesus said to turn to him the other check as well and endure the insult again. Further, people were given legal protection against having their outer clock taken. For many people, this was both their coat and bedding. It was a legal right to keep it. The 'eye for eye' approach would be to insist upon our rights and not allow anyone to take what is rightfully ours. However, Jesus said to let him have your cloak as well. Finally, Roman soldiers were legally allowed to force people to carry their burdens for them for 1 mile. The 'eye for eye' approach would be to carry the burden for just 1 mile, but Jesus said to go 2 miles. The whole point of the passage is that Christians should be the kind of people who do not insist upon their 'rights'. We are to be, as Phil. 2:3-4 says, who consider others better than ourselves and look out for the interest of others, rather than ourselves. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Question about meaning of turning cheek | Matt 5:39 | jeremiah1five | 241623 | ||
QUOTE: "The 'eye for eye' philosphy would be to strike them back and avenge one's self of this affront. But, Jesus said to turn to him the other check as well and endure the insult again." RESPONSE: If this is what you say Jesus is teaching, then Jesus would be teaching amiss and teaching a change in the Law (of Retribution.) Any change in the Law would "destroy" the Law, and if this is the interpretation then the religious leaders would have this to accuse Jesus of (changing, or teaching a change in the Law), but there is no accusation in the Scripture that the "Jews" understood this as a change. What I believe is that Jesus is upholding the Law (of Retribution) of eye for eye and strike for strike. Jesus can't be changing the Law for any change in the Law would "destroy" the Law and this is tantamount to Jesus "destroying" Himself for the Law prophesied most about Israel's Kinsman-Redeemer. |
||||||