Scriptures. we need interpreters. really.

All my life i'd been a catholic and i just knew this morning what "turning the other cheek", "giving your inner cloak", and "walking the extra mile" actually meant back in Jesus' time.

Just this morning, I attended a triduum seminar with a Jesuit as the main preacher. He mainly talked about the connection of our redemption and Christ's crucifixion. That's a pretty firm topic to have in a seminar because for me, I don't know what Christ's dying on the cross has got to do with our redemption. I think the statement "Christ died to save us" is a plain theological statement. In a simpler way, it's a second level of interpretation.

What's the first level then? the historical context which he discussed heavily on. Now this article won't go into explaining the connection of Christ's redemption and His crucifixion however, this article will explain the importance of interpretation in the HISTORICAL context. Meaning, an interpretation that's mostly (if not purely) fact and less (if not zero) opinion.

Hard time grappling with your faith? I do too. I'm especially disturbed with passages that seemingly make things more conducive to our oppressors.

Let's take a look at the statement "turn the other cheek". I've been a catholic all my life and I've never encountered a homily that taught me that it isn't about getting yourself slapped again on the other cheek or about offering more of yourself to abuse and/or injury. In historical context, it actually meant avoiding the secondary slap.

Historically, slaves in Jesus' time and culture were slapped with the left backhand (because the right was used for holier purposes e.g. lighting temple candles) while the left is used for slapping servants, etc. Now get someone near to you at right now at lets test this out. face each other and, pretending to be the master, raise your left hand, the backhand facing the face of the person you're facing (the slave). In slow-mo, slap the person. Ok so technically, his/her head moved to his right. "turning the other cheek" so the person will move his head facing his/her left now. now if you're a master in Jesus' time, you can't slap the person with your left anymore and if you did so with your right, you'll be making your right hand unholy or you treated your slave as an equal. If you beat each other up, or if you punch a slave, you'll be treating him/her as an equal and thus elevating his/her social status. So "turning the other cheek" means, to avoid getting slapped again or get slapped at the risk of your master.

Let's take another example. "Give your inner cloak". This doesn't mean we, at the present cultural norms, will give everything we have. i'll explain.

Almost every Jew in Jesus' time, wore two pieces of clothing no matter how poor they were. An outer cloak (usually quite expensive. Even Jesus' outer cloak was coveted by the Roman soldiers that they even gambled as to who will take it) and an inner cloak. Since poor people don't have properties and other valuables, they have their outer cloak to pay as collateral. However, it was customary for their time to lend back the outer cloak during nighttime (to protect the poor debtor from the cold) and be given back during daytime as an act of charity. Jesus told them to giver their inner cloaks as well because inner cloaks mean undergarments. Meaning, they will strip in front of their debtor. Seeing people nude in their time was taboo. You commit sin when you see someone naked. It isn't trouble for the person who's getting naked but taboo for the person seeing that person naked. So in doing so, they are shaming the debtor and causing him/her to sin. So "giving your inner cloak" isn't about mindlessly giving all you have to your oppressors but is actually a way to get the upper hand on these people.

Another example? "walk the extra mile" let's go straight to the cultural norms at their time. Roman foot soldiers back then, weren't allowed to ride on horses unlike the centurions (duh, that's why they're called foot soldiers). So, it was decreed that they are able to get one male subject to carry their backpack (which contained their weapons, provisions, etc.) for the length of one mile (because the romans were worried that more than a mile is a heavy form of oppression that might just cause more uprisings). Jesus suggested that they "walk the extra mile" because in doing so, they'll put the romans soldiers in danger because if his superiors will catch his subordinate walking an extra mile, he'll be on the roman unemployment list in a jiffy.

Now if this is the message that Jesus' audience understood in their time and culture, isn't it better if we have the passages interpreted to us by people who know the culture of people in Jesus' time instead of misinterpreting Jesus' message by ourselves by applying the wrong context to what He said? The way I originally interpreted the above scriptures as "suffer more" is a polar opposite to that of the historical interpretation which is "make your oppressors suffer".

I hope that biblical scholars unearth more truths in the Gospels and expose us more to it. Maybe they can come up with a book that has a collection of the most accurate scripture interpretation or have it somewhere online for people to read and reflect about.

catholicism for me is not about believing everything that is simply said. It's been done in the past by those friars who abused our trust by twisting God's word to do their will on their followers. for me, being catholic is about being led more to the more accurate interpretation, the more meaningful message, the truth and let this truth guide me in my spiritual life.