Comments on: 3. the meek http://wecan.be The Beatitudes In Practice, with attitude : we can be the change Wed, 09 May 2012 12:22:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John http://wecan.be/beattitudes/themeek/comment-page-1/#comment-9587 John Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:44:52 +0000 http://wecan.be/3-blessed-are-‘the-meek’-who-practice-self-restraint-and-self-control/#comment-9587 Dave, I love your work, brother. I’m in a group using Plan Be book n study guide. got to ‘blessed are the meek’ yesterday. Like your exploration of ‘meek’ as ‘spirited power’, proactive nonviolent self control. Except when we got to your mention of Mtt 5:39-42, three women in the group immediately said they didn’t think those verses matched what you’d been talking about. Those verses sounded like an invitation to be walked over and trampled on – to become a door mat, not to respond with spirited power and righteous indignation. Fortunately, I knew of Walter Wink’s work on this passage and was able to give the historical and cultural background, explaining how being struck on the right cheek indicates a back hand slap, a sign of superiority and given to put someone back in their place. (In ancient society a left hand punch was out of the question as the left hand was only used for unclean tasks – you couldn’t even gesture with the left hand!) Therefore, the situation is one of power – master/slave; parent/child; male/female… – and used to keep one in their place through humiliation. Turning the other cheek means that you are inviting the oppressor to treat you as an equal. In other words you are refusing to be put in your place and taking a stand against this abuse but without retaliation and violence. The second example refers to the situation where a person could use their cloak for collateral for a loan (it only happened to the poorest people and the one who offered the loan had to return the cloak each evening so the person wouldn’t be cold at night). The poor were forced into debt by the rich who wanted their land. The courts supported the rich and the poor suffered. Jesus’ suggestion of removing all your clothes and giving them over to the oppressor was another sign of humiliation – for the oppressor. It was humiliating to look upon another’s nakedness and more-so if you were the cause! And the third refers to the situation of Roman soldiers being allowed to enlist a person to carry their pack, but only for one mile; to force them carry it longer was an offence. The carrier, by offering to carry the pack a second mile, was taking back some control of the situation at the same time as placing the soldier in some jeopardy of punishment for having brokn the law. In essence, Jesus is encouraging dispossessed, oppressed or people struggling with injustice to take a stand against the oppressor and the injustice but to do it non-violently. (The literary critics tell us that the forth example is different in its style and is likely a later add-on, not original to Jesus’ sermon on the mount. While a possibly valuable instruction, it is not a context of responding with spirited power to violence or oppression.) So, is there a chance of putting on your website reference to Wink’s material on these verses so as to make sense of them for people in the way that you obviously intend them to be taken, but isn’t apparent upon a superficial reading? thanks mate. John D Dave,
I love your work, brother.
I’m in a group using Plan Be book n study guide. got to ‘blessed are the meek’ yesterday. Like your exploration of ‘meek’ as ‘spirited power’, proactive nonviolent self control. Except when we got to your mention of Mtt 5:39-42, three women in the group immediately said they didn’t think those verses matched what you’d been talking about. Those verses sounded like an invitation to be walked over and trampled on – to become a door mat, not to respond with spirited power and righteous indignation. Fortunately, I knew of Walter Wink’s work on this passage and was able to give the historical and cultural background, explaining how being struck on the right cheek indicates a back hand slap, a sign of superiority and given to put someone back in their place. (In ancient society a left hand punch was out of the question as the left hand was only used for unclean tasks – you couldn’t even gesture with the left hand!) Therefore, the situation is one of power – master/slave; parent/child; male/female… – and used to keep one in their place through humiliation. Turning the other cheek means that you are inviting the oppressor to treat you as an equal. In other words you are refusing to be put in your place and taking a stand against this abuse but without retaliation and violence.
The second example refers to the situation where a person could use their cloak for collateral for a loan (it only happened to the poorest people and the one who offered the loan had to return the cloak each evening so the person wouldn’t be cold at night). The poor were forced into debt by the rich who wanted their land. The courts supported the rich and the poor suffered. Jesus’ suggestion of removing all your clothes and giving them over to the oppressor was another sign of humiliation – for the oppressor. It was humiliating to look upon another’s nakedness and more-so if you were the cause! And the third refers to the situation of Roman soldiers being allowed to enlist a person to carry their pack, but only for one mile; to force them carry it longer was an offence. The carrier, by offering to carry the pack a second mile, was taking back some control of the situation at the same time as placing the soldier in some jeopardy of punishment for having brokn the law. In essence, Jesus is encouraging dispossessed, oppressed or people struggling with injustice to take a stand against the oppressor and the injustice but to do it non-violently. (The literary critics tell us that the forth example is different in its style and is likely a later add-on, not original to Jesus’ sermon on the mount. While a possibly valuable instruction, it is not a context of responding with spirited power to violence or oppression.)
So, is there a chance of putting on your website reference to Wink’s material on these verses so as to make sense of them for people in the way that you obviously intend them to be taken, but isn’t apparent upon a superficial reading?
thanks mate.
John D

]]> By: JackBrown http://wecan.be/beattitudes/themeek/comment-page-1/#comment-9307 JackBrown Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:02:35 +0000 http://wecan.be/3-blessed-are-‘the-meek’-who-practice-self-restraint-and-self-control/#comment-9307 Came across this imaginary speech that George Bush COULD have delivered after Sept 11. It's a cool read, especially in context of meekness. Especially as per one of the definitions - responding instead of reacting. I think some of the language in it shows another facet of meekness - those that seek to identify their own contribution to problems before (and perhaps even instead of) focussing on others' contributions. http://www.brianmclaren.net/President%20Bush%E2%80%99s%20ungiven%20speech.pdf Came across this imaginary speech that George Bush COULD have delivered after Sept 11. It’s a cool read, especially in context of meekness. Especially as per one of the definitions – responding instead of reacting.

I think some of the language in it shows another facet of meekness – those that seek to identify their own contribution to problems before (and perhaps even instead of) focussing on others’ contributions.

http://www.brianmclaren.net/President%20Bush%E2%80%99s%20ungiven%20speech.pdf

]]>