I have heard many pastors say we are supposed to be the nicest people on earth, and some others who say judge rightly and be manly!
But this verse strongly supports the nice Christian side.
If my daughter gets raped, should I hand the rapist my other daughter too?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif
What do these verses mean?
Mathew 5 NIV
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 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.
1, sometimes the 'turn the other cheek' is misunderstood. In its semitic form, the expression is actually an agressive stance. But let's take a step back and add some color. The sayings of Jesus are to or about certain situations. Sometimes those are indicated but sometimes there is a general, generation-wide situation to keep in mind.
He's talking about deficiencies in Judaism. You have to keep that in mind and keep in mind where he wants to go with things (followers). At this time, there were such things as zealots or 'sabbath police' and stonings of adulterous people without correct procedure. The saying is then in a different color: if one of these people hits you on a cheek because you are not zealous enough about the law, don't give into his intimidation. Show him the other cheek because you are not going to change. There were at least 7 flaws in Judaism pointed out there in that teaching Mt 5-7 and many, many others.
2, in light of that, your example is too far removed from such a setting to be a worthwhile comparison. All applicable law enforcement should be deployed.
3, in the case of the mile, there was an agreement that a Roman soldier could order a Judean to assist for a mile at any time needed, without compensation. Please keep in mind this is in an era when the zealots are trying to foment hostility against Rome. It is one of the indicators that the Christians were not part of the zealot movement. Likewise, when John the Baptizer said something to Roman soldiers, it was not insurrectionist. Instead it was a request to them to be fair, and not extort people simply because they were the occupying power. In Acts 24 Paul is mistaken to be a terrorist and mistreated. He points out to the official who was going to beat him that he was a Roman citizen, and the incident then became God's way of getting him into upper administration audiences with the Gospel.
4, I have heard from a rabbi that in addition to the assertiveness of what Jesus was saying (ie don't be a victim), he was also puzzled about why Jesus did not use the broader context of 'eye for an eye.' The passage is sort of every skeptics fav because it makes out God to be retributive, not realizing it is in a context about restitution. Restitution meant replacing the value to the victim that was lost. If they lost an eye, you provided one. This is not meant to ruin yet another eye! It means that the perp had to help the victim in a fair replacement of what was lost.
So the rabbi was asking me why did Jesus 'validate' how the Pharisees would use this expression, which was retribution that was damaging. Of course, to deal with Judaism as is, you have to respond to what they think it means at that time. But I did not have any other answer for him.
