Luke 6: A Verse (or Two) at a Time

[paradox3]

If we take this context historically for Jesus' time, do you think this would be a challenge to fight back? Such as slapping someone with a glove to start a gun dual?
Or to humiliate someone?

I don't think Jesus intended for turning the other cheek to be a challenge. But you are right, it could be perceived as such. Not even Jesus can control everyone's reaction.

 

[Mystic]

I'm reminded of a scene from a great movie "Witness" in which Harrison Ford is a tough dectective hidden among the Amish to protect a little Amish boy who is a mob target because he has witnessed a murder. Dressed like an Amish man, Ford goes to town with others and is accosted by men who love to humiliate the Amish. One of them jams an ice cream cone on Ford's face--and Ford just stands there until the guy is finished. Then he shocks his tormentors by breaking the guy's nose wjth a punch! I'm reminded that Jesus told His disciples to sell their coats, if they have to, to buy a sword for self-defense. The application of this group of sayings of Jesus is rendered difficult for 2 reasons: (1) It would be helpful to know their original context. (2) They represent a form of Semitic hyperbole that makes application difficult.

 

[paradox3]

Witness was a great movie. It's been years since I saw it but I don't recall the nose punching scene.

The love affair between the detective and an Amish woman had more impact on me. I remember that she was already betrothed to an Amish man and there was no chance she was going to leave her community. The Amish man knew about the affair and waited patiently for it to be over and for the detective to leave.

The Amish man could be seen as turning the other cheek, no?

The Amish have strong pacifist principles. There was a scene where these principles were overridden in self defense. The bad guy was smothered by grain in the barn when the chute was opened from above.

Excellent movie, thanks for reminding me about it @Mystic

By the way it is debatable whether Jesus wanted those swords to be used in self defense. Remember when the disciples said they already had two swords? Jesus said, "It is enough."

Two swords would not have been enough to defend all of the disciples. So Jesus might have had another meaning in mind. Swords often symbolize the word of God AFAIK.

I vote for ambiguous.

 

[paradox3]

Was Jesus a complete pacifist? We might think so as we contemplate his words about loving our enemies and turning the other cheek.

But we have already seen him get in the Pharisees' faces about healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. This was somewhat of an aggressive move, I thought.

Throughout the Gospels Jesus has many harsh words for the scribes and the Pharisees. Not really hawk-like but not dove-like either.

And then there is incident with the tables in the Temple. John places it early in His ministry as a Sign. The synoptics place it in the final week in Jerusalem.

 

[Mystic]

By the way it is debatable whether Jesus wanted those swords to be used in self defense. Remember when the disciples said they already had two swords? Jesus said, "It is enough."

Then why did Jesus tell them to sell their cloak, if they needed to, to buy a sword? Peter used one of the swords in Gethsemane to cut off Malchus' ear (John 18:10). Jesus objected to this violence not because of pacifism, but because the arrest was part of His plan to die a martyr's death.

Two swords would not have been enough to defend all of the disciples.

Jesus wanted deterrence, not an armed guerrilla group. Jesus supported the right of self-defense, not aggression: "Those who take to the sword (aggressively) will perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52)."

 

[paradox3]

Oh yes I had forgotten the story about the ear being cut off. The servant of the high priest has his ear cut off in all four Gospels but he is only named in John.

Luke, alone, has Jesus healing the servant.

 

[Mystic]

The context of the sayings currently under discussion matters. Consider this saying that Matthew adds when discussing the similar material:
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two (Matthew 5:41).” During Jesus’ day, the law gave a Roman soldier the right to force anyone in the empire to carry his gear for one mile. A mile was considered to be a thousand steps. This is a matter of entitlement by law.
But Jesus does not want His followers to be governed by entitlement. So He teaches them to voluntarily go the extra mile as an act of kindness.
The relevance of this entitlement issue would be clearer if we knew the context of the Lucan sayings under discussion.

 

[paradox3]

It's also important to consider if Jesus is addressing the twelve or speaking to the larger group.of disciples/ followers.

 

[jimkenney12]

Within the community, turning one's cheek would serve to end the conflict. If the aggressor struck the other cheek, their relationship with the whole community was at risk. It would have been a physical way of saying, "Hold on Brother. A tight is no way gor us to behave."

Outside the community it would have been less effective but a way of saying I am free to choose how to respond to you.

I wonder if walking the second mile might have had some consequences for the soldier.

The main point is to use what you know of your culture and the situation to choose the most helpful response, the wise as serpents, innocent as doves response. Do not do what is expected.

 

[paradox3]

"Going the extra mile" has become part of English vernacular. There are many biblical references which have done the same.

 

[unsafe]

Luke 6 is addressing Believers here​

​

Luke 6:29 NRSVE​

29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other

The word strikes here --means----insults ---scolds or reprimands

Strong's Concordance
epipléssó: to strike at, to rebuke (with words)
to strike someone with sharp, insensitive (brutal) words.
to chastise with words, to chide, upbraid, rebuke

I say -------So when someone insults --scolds or reprimands you ---your are not to retaliate ---turn the other cheek and walk away -----

Luke 6:29 NRSVUE​

29 also, and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.

I say ------If a robber takes your coat don't fret about your loss even if they want your shirt give it to them and trust God to replenish what was taken from you ---

Notice ----Will Supply -----this is a Promise -----need a coat and shirt that was taken from you ----Trust God ----not man

 

[paradox3]

Hello everyone! Here is Luke 6: 30

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 6:30 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Give to everyone who asks of you, and if anyone takes away what is yours, do not ask for it back again.

www.biblegateway.com

Jesus advocates for extreme generosity in today's verse.

Imagine a community living out these principles. The people love their enemies and pray for them. They avoid conflict and willingly give away what they have.

Would Jesus and his traveling entourage have been such a group? What about a community of holy men living in caves? Could Jesus actually have been an Essene?

We know from other biblical texts that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Does this context help our understanding of the lifestyle suggested by Jesus? Or is Jesus providing moral guidance for all times?

 

[Luce NDs]

I'm reminded of a scene from a great movie "Witness" in which Harrison Ford is a tough dectective hidden among the Amish to protect a little Amish boy who is a mob target because he has witnessed a murder. Dressed like an Amish man, Ford goes to town with others and is accosted by men who love to humiliate the Amish. One of them jams an ice cream cone on Ford's face--and Ford just stands there until the guy is finished. Then he shocks his tormentors by breaking the guy's nose wjth a punch! I'm reminded that Jesus told His disciples to sell their coats, if they have to, to buy a sword for self-defense. The application of this group of sayings of Jesus is rendered difficult for 2 reasons: (1) It would be helpful to know their original context. (2) They represent a form of Semitic hyperbole that makes application difficult.

Thus the left crossover transpired and the righteous didn't see it creeping up ... because they were not tuned to the command about genteel and gentiles as Golem ... that's the dirt n that ... so it blow 'd right'roue ... if substituting an "h" for the "YOD" (') it becomes righthroue ... in passing ... thus go 'n!

 

[Luce NDs]

Was Jesus a complete pacifist? We might think so as we contemplate his words about loving our enemies and turning the other cheek.

But we have already seen him get in the Pharisees' faces about healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. This was somewhat of an aggressive move, I thought.

Throughout the Gospels Jesus has many harsh words for the scribes and the Pharisees. Not really hawk-like but not dove-like either.

And then there is incident with the tables in the Temple. John places it early in His ministry as a Sign. The synoptics place it in the final week in Jerusalem.

The dai the tables turned on whoever laid out the law? These things always go round and come back at cha ... with etches ... eccles?

And one has to ask: is Luke X 'Ç' Loo sieve without Lucy? In some terms that Lu Sin dah ... a storm in the fo-ther part ... Valhalla ... great haul in the vale ...

Expect filtering of the vapors --- Freud!

Happens in Zeolites ... transpires ... just happenings ... random events! REM's ...

 

[unsafe]

Luke 6:30

New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
​

30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and if anyone takes away what is yours, do not ask for it back again.

I personally think this one needs discernment ------giving to people who ask because they are lazy and do not want to work goes against God's will ----

Footnotes​

1. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 I.e. if one is able, but unwilling to work to provide for himself or his family, it is unjust for him to receive the necessities of life provided free by those who willingly work.

I say -----Some people can be shysters prospering while leaving the Saint to be a pauper

So it is important to discern whether the person is in genuine need of what they are asking for -----the indwelling of Holy Spirit needs to be consulted in this area before acting -----in my view ----

When it is determined that the need is genuine then we are to give freely ----and never allow greed or our love or attachments to our stuff get in the way of our giving by way of expecting it back -----

When true followers give out of their Agape for God it give God the Glory not us -----God gives us all kinds of Blessings and we did nothing to deserve any of them ---

We are Blessed to be a Blessing to others ----everything we have --we only have it because God allowed us to obtain it ----We ourselves own Nothing -----so giving out to one in need is giving what God provided us with to freely give to help another ----

 

[paradox3]

Your comments make sense @unsafe. But I don't see Jesus attaching any conditions to his directives in the Sermon on the Plain.

 

[Luce NDs]

Your comments make sense @unsafe. But I don't see Jesus attaching any conditions to his directives in the Sermon on the Plain.

It is the one book theory that causes some balk! Consider John's conclusion about what's oute there ... a stretch ... stress dis ease ... relax idle snap back ...

 

[Mendalla]

Imagine a community living out these principles. The people love their enemies and pray for them. They avoid conflict and willingly give away what they have.

Sounds like a recipe for some exploitive con artist to come in and take advantage of their naivete. Sounds nice but so do most utopias. Human nature, however, tends against utopian ideals.

I think if this is about living in community, though, then one could see it as a call to share and treat things in a more communal way.

Just like turning the other cheek would be fine for conflict resolution within a community but does not work so well when facing down the cold hard world. There's a time and a place to do that, but there's also a time and a place to take self-defence classes and use that knowledge.

 

[paradox3]

Sounds like a recipe for some exploitive con artist to come in and take advantage of their naivete. Sounds nice but so do most utopias. Human nature, however, tends against utopian ideals.

I think if this is about living in community, though, then one could see it as a call to share and treat things in a more communal way.

Just like turning the other cheek would be fine for conflict resolution within a community but does not work so well when facing down the cold hard world. There's a time and a place to do that, but there's also a time and a place to take self-defence classes and use that knowledge.

Actually trying to live this way would require discernment as @unsafe suggested.

These principles seem to fit an isolated community more than broader society. That is why I wondered about the Essenes in an earlier post.

Some people have come to the conclusion Jesus must have been a communist. Others have said these ideas were only for the short term because the world was expected to end soon.

 

[paradox3]

Not to derail my own thread, but is the Kingdom of God a utopian ideal?

I believe that Jesus usually talked about the Kingdom of God arriving at the end of time. But you can certainly find Jesus suggesting otherwise on some occasions.

It could be that the seeds of the Kingdom are here now.