Confession time: This whole interpretation of “Josh wasn’t telling you to be a no-boundaries doormat in Matthew 5/Luke 6, he was telling you to be a passive-aggressive snarker” — complete with reference to the specific Roman laws involved — is something I got from a Tumblr post.
Is it historically accurate and justified by reliable sources? I have no idea. Is it an awesome move that I definitely had to incorporate into Josh’s characterization here? Absolutely.
Got a link to a better source? Or a well-sourced debunking? Drop a link, let us know.
Angry Audience Guy: What do you think you’re doing, gathering huge crowds like this? Are you trying to get the Empire to crack down on us?
Josh: Calm down, sir! We’re just talking about philosophy.
(transform!)
Josh: I’m a good citizen. I pay my taxes. Well, I don’t, because I’ve spent the past year or so wandering around without a job. But the next time I have an income, you can bet I’ll pay up!
Angry Audience Guy: Don’t be disingenuous! We’ve heard plenty about your sermons in other towns. They aren’t all cute fishing metaphors. There’s a clear disrespect for the authority of the Empire.
Josh: Me? Disrespect our legal authorities? Never!
(sparkle sparkle)
Josh: I’m always saying people should follow the laws. Like the one that says any soldier can have us carry his stuff, but only for up to a mile? Well, I tell people to keep right on going! Might technically be lawbreaking for the soldier, but not for us! Or the law where they can stroll up and demand to have your cloak? I say, why stop there? Give ’em the whole outfit!
María: Wait, when did you add this to your repertoire?
Josh: You like it? I’m thinking of calling it “civil disobedience.”
I didn’t read it, but comments on web suggest that one source would be Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way by Walter Wink. If true, it would probably be more reliable source than tumblr post. However, it’s apparently book, not peer-reviewed study.