tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post8685597781249438392..comments2024-03-28T13:59:11.445-07:00Comments on Left Behind and Loving It: Be Perfect as Nature is PerfectD. Mark Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-45522790357455839532021-02-02T23:46:40.941-08:002021-02-02T23:46:40.941-08:00Great post.
https://asansolorg.contently.com/Great post.<br /><a href="https://asansolorg.contently.com/" rel="nofollow">https://asansolorg.contently.com/</a>Shaquillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383353746468144488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-60989267698891685052017-02-18T10:48:33.727-08:002017-02-18T10:48:33.727-08:00Hi Susan,
Thank you for your very kind words.
...Hi Susan, <br /><br />Thank you for your very kind words. <br /><br />V.39 is hard to discuss because, frankly, it is easier for me to think of it theoretically than for someone who is actually being bullied, abused, or oppressed. So, I will speak to it as best I can, understanding that I am enjoying peace and privilege at this moment in my life. <br /><br />My sense is that "to resist in the evil" carries the idea of joining in the fray, becoming part of the ever-widening circle of violence. It seems so rare that "an eye for an eye" ends there, but rather perpetuates itself into some kind of ongoing feud that simply grows with each round of revenge. My reading is that "to resist" would mean to "fight back." <br /><br />I am re-thinking whether "resist" is strong enough for ἀντιστῆναι. Perhaps "fight back" is a better phrase. <br /><br />If "to resist" means "to fight back," then "not to resist" would not mean "stand there and let someone abuse you," but to find other ways to resolve it. "Turning the other cheek" is one way. While it sounds like we are to avail ourselves as a punching bag - which I think is immoral to suggest to a person who is being abused - I think it would mean something else in Jesus' day. Striking someone on the cheek - as I understand it from readings that may or may not be valid - was a public humiliation or a challenge. It was not a simple assault that would be followed by a pummeling, but a public display for which a guilty person would react with shame, but a not guilty person might respond in kind. To turn the other cheek would be a way of neither admitting guilt or retaliating, but would put the onus on the other person. They accuse, you do not admit guilt, but neither will you resort to violence, so now they have to decide whether their accusation is so certain that they would be willing to strike again, knowing that you would rather endure it than to admit to guilt. <br /><br />Something like that seems to be afoot here, with 'turning the other cheek' as an alternative to striking back. <br /><br />BUT, I am assuming that the person struck is actually innocent or undeserving of the public accusation. That may be a stretch. <br /><br />So, what if the person striking actually has a case. (Like the persons who has the right to order you to carry a load. It may not be morally good, but it is legally permissible. Or, like the person to whom one really does owe money, as in vv. 25-26. Then what? In that case, I could see turning the other cheek as a way of "settling the account" without escalatory violence. <br /><br />So, I am seeing "strike you on your right cheek/jaw" as something other than simply someone getting angry and hitting someone else. I think it is fraught with meaning, legally and culturally. While this verse may have some wonderful meaning regarding more common forms of personal violence, such as kids on the playground, or communal violence, as in Gandhian aggressive nonviolence, I think it is grounded in a form of cultural and legal punishment. <br /><br />Well, that's either me mansplaining badly or simply thinking aloud. Please see it as the latter. <br /><br />Thanks again for your note. Blessings on your ministry. MDD. Mark Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-83798321256818520052017-02-18T09:19:11.504-08:002017-02-18T09:19:11.504-08:00I'm interested in your interpretation of v. 39...I'm interested in your interpretation of v. 39 and the idea that we are not to resist evil 'in the evil." I wonder if that implies we are not to resist by participating with the evil that is being turned on us. What other possible translations might be appropriate for the dative here? I seem to remember "to, by, for" in which case "do not resist evil by evil" makes a lot of sense to me.<br />BTW, I really appreciate your rough translations, I'm no Greek scholar, but I usually look at your blog and Bibleworks for illumination of the texts. So, thank you!Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15352022611927274613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-39526115440713326242017-02-17T08:08:53.475-08:002017-02-17T08:08:53.475-08:00Thanks, ubicari. As God is one, life itself is ess...Thanks, ubicari. As God is one, life itself is essentially one, even if we experience existential dualisms along the way. IMHO. D. Mark Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-73428835024364682612017-02-17T07:35:39.190-08:002017-02-17T07:35:39.190-08:00As always, very helpful... the richness of Greek (...As always, very helpful... the richness of Greek (which I do not know) really deepens this passage. I sense some echoes of the non-dualistic approach to life in this passage, and in your glosses. ubicarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848972004305740165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-6800324649189134682014-02-22T05:17:16.759-08:002014-02-22T05:17:16.759-08:00Barry,
Thanks for the explanation. I do think thi...Barry, <br />Thanks for the explanation. I do think this sense of completion, wholeness, or maturity is where the latter part of this chapter - or perhaps the whole chapter - is going. <br />And thanks for your kind remarks. I really don't see myself as anything more than a working pastor, doing what I was trained to do in Seminary as a disciplined way of approaching the text each week, and posting the first few moments of that process to generate discussion with others. I'm glad that you are finding it helpful. <br />MarkD. Mark Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-33929993881044299412014-02-22T05:12:12.565-08:002014-02-22T05:12:12.565-08:00Kirsten,
This is my second attempt also. I don&#...Kirsten, <br /><br />This is my second attempt also. I don't know where that first comment went. <br /><br />I'm not sure why the NRSV translates the future active indicative as if it were an imperative. However, they are following a long tradition in doing so, since the words "You shall not murder" etc. from last week's pericope are also in the future active indicative. The practice goes back a long way, since the LXX translates the 10 Commands into the future active indicative as well. <br /><br />I don't know if Hebrew had a different kind of nuance that gets lost when translated to Greek; or if Greek has a different kind of nuance that gets lost when translated to English; or if this is just a habit because the future active indicative and the imperative are interchangeable. It reminds me that what we call 'The Ten Commandments' are routinely called 'The Ten Words' in the Hebrew text and much of the Jewish tradition. But, by the NT times, they were called 'commands,' as far as my Greek can tell. So, maybe this curiosity goes way back before English translations came along. D. Mark Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-67465788293388003102014-02-20T23:06:07.684-08:002014-02-20T23:06:07.684-08:00V. 48 ‘telioi': I appreciate your translation ...V. 48 ‘telioi': I appreciate your translation of "complete". As I understand it, the Greek word suggests an endpoint, an arrival, a finish, a completion -- a natural and logical conclusion toward which an individual, a community, a nation or even the world has been reaching, striving, journeying (or, in the stop-go-backup-detour sort of progress we human beings generally make, perhaps ‘telios' could even refer to the conclusion toward which we've been "muddling"). At any rate, it's not exactly the pervasive state-of-being "wholeness" represented by ‘shalom' but the finishing touch of a process of maturation. Giving thought to the significance of ‘telioi' sheds new light on this passage and all that leads up to it.<br /><br />Mark, thank you for your weekly (more or less) translations of the RCL Gospel. I loved Greek as an undergrad and a seminarian, and believed as I entered ministry that translating at least the Gospel reading would form the foundation of my preaching. Urgent competing priorities quickly crowded it out, and it has been many years since I've bothered with my Greek Testament. I am grateful to find someone for whom this process is a high priority, and am particularly grateful that you post your work online for any and all to freely access. Your weekly translations have been a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />~BarryBarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17583785645420322731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-3517373636376323092014-02-19T05:48:58.587-08:002014-02-19T05:48:58.587-08:00Pierre,
Always good to hear from you.
μαρκ δανίσ...Pierre, <br />Always good to hear from you. <br />μαρκ δανίσD. Mark Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-40697971054012370202014-02-19T05:47:09.736-08:002014-02-19T05:47:09.736-08:00Vic: That is a great way of thinking about "p...Vic: That is a great way of thinking about "perfect," which I've never put together before. Thanks for sharing it. And be ready to hear it again one of these days because it makes so much sense. D. Mark Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-48334771611240269832014-02-19T05:46:18.975-08:002014-02-19T05:46:18.975-08:00Dave: The crux of the "love your friends, hat...Dave: The crux of the "love your friends, hate your enemies" dictum is that one seems to imply the other: Since mutual 'love' is part of the definition of friendship, then mutual 'hate' is part of the definition of enmity. There are, then, 4 moments in the common dictum: My friend loves me; I love my friend; my enemy hates me; I hate my enemy. It seems to me that Jesus is overturning just one part of that equation and arguing that my hate is not necessarily part of the definition of enmity. And I suspect it was as unpopular then as it is now, because we cannot conceive what it means to have an 'enemy' if s/he is not someone whom we hate. <br />I appreciate your reference to 9/11 because our national mourning so quickly devolved into expressions of rage and bigotry. <br />Oh, this would be a great conversation! Let's make a date for it! D. Mark Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-19206108875904104132014-02-18T18:35:52.137-08:002014-02-18T18:35:52.137-08:00Mark,
Thank you for this post. It was part of the...Mark,<br />Thank you for this post. It was part of the discussion today in our ecumenical minister's meeting. Your work enhances our sermon prep. Although some thought that the focus of the pericope is vs 45 and others 48 your input is appreciated. By the by, I will make mention of your name in verse 42 in my sermon this week.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00264936050162107680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-43280998147133054882014-02-18T14:09:44.893-08:002014-02-18T14:09:44.893-08:00Mark, this quote brings up lots of thoughts for me...Mark, this quote brings up lots of thoughts for me:<br /><br />"Yet I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who mistreat you,..."<br /><br />I'm struck by how we espouse this as Christians, but that much of our society (including many Christians) does not buy into this in practice.<br /><br />The most vivid example I remember of this was on September 11th, when people were out on my street corner in droves, waving American flags in the air.<br /><br />At first, I was very moved by this show of unity and thought that it was quite something that so many strangers got together with no planning to show support for others. Yet, in dialogue with people in my community in the weeks following, I learned that much of this solidarity was driven by a hated for the enemy. I was discouraged that the only thing that seemed to be able to unite Americans was anger towards a common enemy.<br /><br />Much of our popular media, music, and discourse that followed this time (and still does) reflected this too.<br /><br />I know I need to be an example of this first (as God knows, I have fallen short many times) but I do find it discouraging that so much of our national discourse turns to what we hate or who we are angry at.<br /><br />I'm excited to hear your sermon and perspective on this. No answers here from me - just questions. But, good news is that I go to a church that likes questions a lot. =)Dave Stachowiakhttp://coachingforleaders.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-30452608121162815202014-02-17T08:40:08.196-08:002014-02-17T08:40:08.196-08:00I've always tried to talk about "perfect&...I've always tried to talk about "perfect" as we use it in grammar: the past "perfect" tense is not more flawless than the past tense, but indicates "completeness" of action. Complete and whole, over flawless.Vic Mansfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194671996997775313noreply@blogger.com