Bullying and "Turn the Other Cheek"

[HailStarofSea]

Bullies tend to pick on people who have high moral character.

But targets, of both genders, rarely react with aggression. That’s what makes them targets. Bullies sense who will be an easier mark. Targets are sorted into those who take no action because of a higher moral calling.

But Bible tells us “turn the other cheek” in response to bullying. What does that mean? Is this wikipedia entry the Catholic view?

Literal interpretation

A literal interpretation of the passages, in which the command refers specifically to a manual strike against the side of a person’s face, can be supported by reference to historical and other factors.[2] At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[3] If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[4] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one’s cloak in addition to one’s tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.

By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
—Genesis 9:20-23 Authorized Version

The succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.[5] In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.[6] As a side effect this may also have afforded the early followers a longer time to minister to the soldier and or cause the soldier not to seek followers of Jesus to carry his equipment in the future so as not to be bothered with their proselytizing.[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

 

[triumphguy]

I was bullied as a kid. It sucked it up for years in order to “Turn the other cheek,” “Be the bigger man,” and “turn and walk away.”

Then one day I fought back and beat the bully and my life was transformed.

I don’t think kids should have to turn the other cheek.

 

[MrsFlapjack]

I was bullied as a kid. It sucked it up for years in order to “Turn the other cheek,” “Be the bigger man,” and “turn and walk away.”

Then one day I fought back and beat the bully and my life was transformed.

I don’t think kids should have to turn the other cheek.

I agree. I also was bullied for many years. My parents told me that they were just trying to get me angry, so if I ignored them, they would eventually give up and go away. Wrong! They just bullied me worse because they looked at me as an easy target.

 

[Robertanthony]

I was bullied as a kid. It sucked it up for years in order to “Turn the other cheek,” “Be the bigger man,” and “turn and walk away.”

Then one day I fought back and beat the bully and my life was transformed.

I don’t think kids should have to turn the other cheek.

I’m glad you did. I wonder just what “turning the other cheek” means, when is it the right thing to do, when does God expect us to do that?

 

[Farsight001]

I read in a book once (by Scott Hahn, maybe? A Catholic author at least) that “turn the other cheek” is often misunderstood due to ignorance of ancient culture.

Two things about ancient culture are important - first, that, like today in many middle eastern countries, the left hand is used for going to the bathroom and other “dirty” things, while the right is for everything else. Second, that, culturally, when striking another man, if he is an equal, you do it with a closed fist, and if you consider him beneath you, you strike with the back of your hand.

So what happens is that a man uses his right hand to strike another, open back hand, on the other’s right cheek. “Turning the other cheek”, then presents the left cheek, which must be struck with a closed fist with the right hand.

In other words, “turning the other cheek” was to essentially say “hey, I am your equal, and you will treat me as such, or we’ll have a problem.” To “turn the other cheek” was to neither run nor fight, but stand your ground all the same.

Interesting to note, in my opinion, is that nearly all the biggest fighters of oppression and unfair treatment in history did exactly that - Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Jesus - they neither ran nor became violent.

 

[triumphguy]

Interesting explanation. Thanks.

 

[Jacob18]

I read in a book once (by Scott Hahn, maybe? A Catholic author at least) that “turn the other cheek” is often misunderstood due to ignorance of ancient culture.

Two things about ancient culture are important - first, that, like today in many middle eastern countries, the left hand is used for going to the bathroom and other “dirty” things, while the right is for everything else. Second, that, culturally, when striking another man, if he is an equal, you do it with a closed fist, and if you consider him beneath you, you strike with the back of your hand.

So what happens is that a man uses his right hand to strike another, open back hand, on the other’s right cheek. “Turning the other cheek”, then presents the left cheek, which must be struck with a closed fist with the right hand.

In other words, “turning the other cheek” was to essentially say “hey, I am your equal, and you will treat me as such, or we’ll have a problem.” To “turn the other cheek” was to neither run nor fight, but stand your ground all the same.

Interesting to note, in my opinion, is that nearly all the biggest fighters of oppression and unfair treatment in history did exactly that - Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Jesus - they neither ran nor became violent.

Lovely post. I particularly like that you pointed that out in the last part.

On another note, my aunt, whom I have thought to be one of the most saintly people I know, told my younger cousins something like, “Don’t start fights, but don’t back down.” (Which I cannot say I completely agree with!)

I, myself, am quiet and often keep to myself so some people think of me as an easy target. I like the “No, we are not going to have this. You respect me, I respect you” approach and I do not recall it not working - just sticking up for yourself and not being completely passive. I am not sure what to do if it does not work, though - I am against fighting!

 

[HailStarofSea]

I read in a book once (by Scott Hahn, maybe? A Catholic author at least) that “turn the other cheek” is often misunderstood due to ignorance of ancient culture.

Two things about ancient culture are important - first, that, like today in many middle eastern countries, the left hand is used for going to the bathroom and other “dirty” things, while the right is for everything else. Second, that, culturally, when striking another man, if he is an equal, you do it with a closed fist, and if you consider him beneath you, you strike with the back of your hand.

So what happens is that a man uses his right hand to strike another, open back hand, on the other’s right cheek. “Turning the other cheek”, then presents the left cheek, which must be struck with a closed fist with the right hand.

In other words, “turning the other cheek” was to essentially say “hey, I am your equal, and you will treat me as such, or we’ll have a problem.” To “turn the other cheek” was to neither run nor fight, but stand your ground all the same.

Interesting to note, in my opinion, is that nearly all the biggest fighters of oppression and unfair treatment in history did exactly that - Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Jesus - they neither ran nor became violent.

Do you remember the name of the book?

 

[Farsight001]

Do you remember the name of the book?

Unfortunately, no. I’ve got it somewhere, but I have a small library of religious books and not much time to read them again for the time being.

 

[GutsfromBerserk]

Turning the other cheek does not mean accepting what the billies tell you as real and get all depressed about it. There is a diffirence between what you really are or what you want to be vs what others want you to be.

At the same time, for a physically weak kid to defend himself against a stronger bully is a bit foolish so unless he himself is strong, I don’t suggest it. However, I don’t think fighting using force agaisnt a bully is wrong. Fighitng to defend yourself and others is very good and honorale, it’s when fighting is used for purposes other than that when it becomes violence. I actually suggest that a kid take karate or kendo lessons as they can give him insight on what is moral and what is not; they help him become a stronger eprson emotionally.

 

[marymary1975]

I heard once a priest explaining the giving the other cheek. He also mentioned it is heavily misinterpreted. However his explanation had little to do with the right and left hand explanation. He said that pretty much we can find the explanation when Jesus himself was slapped on the face. What did Jesus do when the Roman Centurion struck Jesus on the face? did Jesus turned the other cheek? No, he didn’t, instead he told the centurion: why did you hit me? And then challenged the centurion to indicate in which was Jesus had spoken improperly. The reason for this was because God is also justice and the centurion behaved in an unjust way so God doesn’t approve injustice. So pretty much we should not respond in a violent way but we have to take a pacific stand against injustice. Jesus didn’t put the other cheek but he didn’t responded with another struck, he took a stand by using the right words.