Turn the other cheek is not a call to rank pacifism. I do not buy that interpretation That would be contrary to his other teachings, carrying a sword and millstones
The interpretation that works best I think, it needs some cultural context. The romans were a society that ruled and lorded it over their provinces, being able to make people do work for them and carry stuff, and they would routinely slap their inferiors and slaves. They'd slap each other too, honour was a thing back then, but it was a different type of hit. Now also look at the middle eastern context even today. The left hand is dirty, it is for cleaning and toileting, it is unclean.
Now look at exactly what Jesus said, if they slap the right cheek. He didn't say the left, he didn't say a cheek, he said if they slap you on the right specifically. What you do as a subject of Rome in that region is in a way, resist, insist you are equals, and that if you're gunna fight and slap, they do so on the other cheek, with the clean hand, and like equals, as though it were with a fellow Roman.
To a roman, this is 'hateful', it is saying that non roman's are equal to they, at least, which is an unfathomable and disgusting thought to them. (I can see some parallels to today really)
The other lines near that one lend more strength to that interpretation. If you are pressed into service to carry something one mile, go two? Well that just sounds weak right? Well no. The Roman gov was conscious of the fact that the 'you must carry stuff for our soldiers' laws were being abused and creating more discontent, even they had limits. Their soldiers were only allowed to have the locals carry it so far, but no further. This is an act of defiance and perhaps mockery also, to offer another mile. If he takes you up on it, he has broken Roman law and disobeyed Caeser.
There is context to these that show they're, while not aggressive, they're a form of assertive resistance. They're all claims to dignity and resistance without recourse to violence really.
This also fits with the wise and clever interpretations of His teachings. There are numerous instances of the jews and pharisies against him trying to ensnare him in some legal trap with tricksy wording to get him in trouble before it was time or in a vain attempt to disprove his teachings, and Jesus would say a clever specific thing that would stump them. He's very careful and clever about wording, as is respected tradition at the time too, and we're 2000 years removed from the cultural context of some things and some gestures. He said right cheek specifically. So we should ask and explore why.
If we’re going to be relativist, then “hateful” works for every situation.
No, it doesn't. Saying "Turn the other cheek" (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:38-40&version=NIV) isn't hateful. Saying "Die, degenerate/pagan/faggot/etc" is.
Jesus is pretty hypocritical there then. He should've just turned his lower cheeks towards them.
Turn the other cheek is not a call to rank pacifism. I do not buy that interpretation That would be contrary to his other teachings, carrying a sword and millstones
The interpretation that works best I think, it needs some cultural context. The romans were a society that ruled and lorded it over their provinces, being able to make people do work for them and carry stuff, and they would routinely slap their inferiors and slaves. They'd slap each other too, honour was a thing back then, but it was a different type of hit. Now also look at the middle eastern context even today. The left hand is dirty, it is for cleaning and toileting, it is unclean.
Now look at exactly what Jesus said, if they slap the right cheek. He didn't say the left, he didn't say a cheek, he said if they slap you on the right specifically. What you do as a subject of Rome in that region is in a way, resist, insist you are equals, and that if you're gunna fight and slap, they do so on the other cheek, with the clean hand, and like equals, as though it were with a fellow Roman.
To a roman, this is 'hateful', it is saying that non roman's are equal to they, at least, which is an unfathomable and disgusting thought to them. (I can see some parallels to today really)
The other lines near that one lend more strength to that interpretation. If you are pressed into service to carry something one mile, go two? Well that just sounds weak right? Well no. The Roman gov was conscious of the fact that the 'you must carry stuff for our soldiers' laws were being abused and creating more discontent, even they had limits. Their soldiers were only allowed to have the locals carry it so far, but no further. This is an act of defiance and perhaps mockery also, to offer another mile. If he takes you up on it, he has broken Roman law and disobeyed Caeser.
There is context to these that show they're, while not aggressive, they're a form of assertive resistance. They're all claims to dignity and resistance without recourse to violence really.
This also fits with the wise and clever interpretations of His teachings. There are numerous instances of the jews and pharisies against him trying to ensnare him in some legal trap with tricksy wording to get him in trouble before it was time or in a vain attempt to disprove his teachings, and Jesus would say a clever specific thing that would stump them. He's very careful and clever about wording, as is respected tradition at the time too, and we're 2000 years removed from the cultural context of some things and some gestures. He said right cheek specifically. So we should ask and explore why.
Of course it is. I don't understand why this opinion is unpopular here.
Hate has its place. The idea that it can or should be somehow suppressed at all costs is idiotic and a recipe for disaster.
Sometimes hate is a logical response to conditions.