Parabolic Parameters

Well, after the last two posts, I think it's fair to say that I haven't actually done that much so far this week, so I will write something else instead. So here is a post about some things Jesus said. Some of the more observant (and pedantic) among you may protest that they are not, strictly speaking, parables; but they are sort of wise sayings-and I just couldn't resist the title.

So, here are a couple of well known passages, the first from Matthew 5:-
“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.

This is often understood to mean that Jesus is saying that we should be weak, as it were, and there may be something in that. But when you look into it a bit more deeply, it begins to look (or sound) a bit different. Mainly because we don't understand the context-the people he's referring to here are all in situations where they are not equal to the other; they are definitely inferior. In such circumstances, they would have been forced to go along with it; or, they could have turned to violence, which would have definitely ended badly for them. Now Jesus is definitely going along the lines of violence not being the solution, but He isn't actually saying that they should give up. Actually something quite different.
Well, clearly, He seems to be against violence here, but He is not saying to give up. Remembering that the people He was speaking to were in a downtrodden position, we can look at what He is advising them to do. First, if someone was hitting someone (an inferior) on the cheek, it would be a backhanded blow, to emphasise not only that they are inferior, but so unimportant that they don't even want to look at them. If they then 'offer the other cheek'; this means that they are forced to not only acknowledge them, but acknowledge them as equal-at least in value, if not in status. Now you may think, but that still means you're letting them hit you again; but if so, you're missing the point. In this situation, the 'hitter', the 'superior' has nothing to stop them hitting you anyway, and they would. What you are, in effect, saying is that, although you can't stop them, you are not going to accept their decision as to your value as a person. You are valuable just because you are a person; and you will hold onto that. And it gets better. The second point, about offering someone your coat was something that wasn't allowed in the Law; or, if you did take someone's coat, you had to give it back every night so they would be warm. So, publicly, at least, they would have to refuse.
But He has left the best for last. It doesn't say here who the 'someone' is, but it refers to Roman soldiers. There was a law in place that stated that any Roman soldier could demand of any conquered citizen to carry his pack up to one mile. Hypothetically, that would mean any soldier could demand it of any citizen; of whatever status. But it was no more than a mile, the punishments were harsh for any soldier caught abusing their power; therefore, if you offered to take it another mile, he would not only have to refuse, but would likely not go anywhere near the mile limit in the first place. I now have this cartoon image in my head of a soldier and a citizen fighting over who gets to carry the pack. My guess is that if the practice became widespread, the soldiers would probably stop demanding in the first place, as that would be easier-or, at least, less likely to get them into trouble. Just imagine what would happen if this sort of behaviour became widespread. Where the oppressors keep having to back down due to potential consequences. From this, I get two main ideas about God-one, that He respects and values everyone: and two, that He has a sense of humour. A very dry sense of humour here, I think.

And here is the second passage:-

²⁰ Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. ²¹ So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. ²² Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
²³ He saw through their duplicity and said to them, ²⁴ “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
²⁵ He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
²⁶ They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they began to argue among themselves.

This passage has often been used to support the idea that religion and politics should be kept separate; especially in America. But in context, it doesn't really mean that at all. The key to this is the answer to the question of what is on the denarius. Now obviously, it had a picture of Caesar-as it makes clear, it was his coin-but it's what the inscription is that makes the difference. The inscription decided on by Augustus declared him to be the 'Son of God', which basically meant he was claiming to be divine himself; which apparently even some Romans found difficult to take. So, for a loyal Jew, you can imagine what impression that left. Given that on showing Jesus the coin, they are looking at the inscription, they can't pretend they don't know what it is saying; and nor can they ignore the quite clear implication of what Jesus is telling them-if the LORD is God, then Caesar isn't. In which case, which claim are they going to support?
And, in our case, also a direct challenge-if we believe and proclaim that God is Lord of All, then that means He's Lord of, well, all. So, if we try to keep Him out of politics, who are we therefore saying is Lord of us:-our lives, our choices, our ideas? If not Him, then who? It's easy to think that Jesus is saying that religion and politics should be kept separate; we like that, as that means we get to make our own choices about a lot of things. But if He's actually saying the opposite, that God doesn't want to be left out of anything, and that He has the right to be in charge; then what? If actually, there is no difference between religion and politics, or rather that religion is one aspect of politics; in that politics includes every decision we make, and the reasons for them; then the question of 'who is God' becomes a whole lot more real. As the old hymn says, He 'demands my soul, my life my all'.