S
SeanTom
Guest
This is my interpretation of Matthew 5:39:
After being slapped on one cheek, and then being asked to turn the other cheek, is difficult to understand. Those, who feel that Christians should refrain from retaliation, should consider carefully the words of Jesus: “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:39). While it might seem that Jesus is calling for pacifism at first glance, a simple analysis of the words used reveals that this may not be the case.
Note the specification of the “right” cheek. Why would He need to make such a specification? Why not the left cheek? In fact, it doesn’t really make much sense, because if someone were to hit you on your right cheek, it means they either hit you from behind or they caught you with a left hook. Most people, however, are right-handed, and have not had boxing lessons. Therefore, in the majority of cases, you are going to get slapped on your left cheek. UNLESS you were slapped with by the “back” of a hand, therefore landing on the right cheek.
Here is one explanation of Jesus’ statement. You must recall that Jesus was talking to a large crowd, with many of them being Jews. Actually, the phrase used in this passage is a Jewish idiom which is meaningful to them. A Jew to be slapped with the “back” of a hand is a great INSULT to the one slapped. Note the words that follow: “Turn the other cheek”. This could mean that Jesus is saying it is ok to take another INSULT. Perhaps the message that Jesus is giving us here is that if someone INSULTS us, we should not INSULT them back which could lead to a larger more serious conflict. We look at this “slap” as being more of an INSULT; otherwise it probably would be more of a punch with a fist rather than a slap.
We have to remember that this statement situation involves individuals and does not apply to governmental affairs. The government is not a personality and has no thoughts or actions of its own. This turning of the other cheek does not refer to the armed forces defending itself against aggressors; or a person defending himself or his family.
The above can not be verified by me, but most of what is written above comes from reputable sources. I do admit, in my own opinion, that it does makes sense to me. Otherwise we would end up being punching bags for anyone wanting to take out their frustrations on us, without retaliation. We must always consider the time, place and circumstances of events when
interpreting their meanings. In this case, Jewish understandings.
p.s. This “slap”, as an insult, was carried forward to later years. The French used this slap, usually with an empty glove hitting the right cheek, as an insult to the one slapped, and usually led to a gun duel where one would usually be killed. If the one who was slapped turned the other cheek, or walked away, this would tell the slapper that the person did not want to duel. To the French, this would be considered an act of coward ness on the one being slapped… However, in Jesus time, this act was considered as a means to a non-violent solution.
If a Frenchman would slap another on both cheeks, one right after another, this would indicate a more serious offense and would almost DEMAND a duel with the one so slapped. This may lead to a situation where a duel was imminent and nothing else would suffice. In this case, I believe both parties were in a situation where they had no choice but to defend themselves.
Again, the above is my interpretation as taken from researching this meaning… Other interpretations are most welcome and certainly invited…
After being slapped on one cheek, and then being asked to turn the other cheek, is difficult to understand. Those, who feel that Christians should refrain from retaliation, should consider carefully the words of Jesus: “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:39). While it might seem that Jesus is calling for pacifism at first glance, a simple analysis of the words used reveals that this may not be the case.
Note the specification of the “right” cheek. Why would He need to make such a specification? Why not the left cheek? In fact, it doesn’t really make much sense, because if someone were to hit you on your right cheek, it means they either hit you from behind or they caught you with a left hook. Most people, however, are right-handed, and have not had boxing lessons. Therefore, in the majority of cases, you are going to get slapped on your left cheek. UNLESS you were slapped with by the “back” of a hand, therefore landing on the right cheek.
Here is one explanation of Jesus’ statement. You must recall that Jesus was talking to a large crowd, with many of them being Jews. Actually, the phrase used in this passage is a Jewish idiom which is meaningful to them. A Jew to be slapped with the “back” of a hand is a great INSULT to the one slapped. Note the words that follow: “Turn the other cheek”. This could mean that Jesus is saying it is ok to take another INSULT. Perhaps the message that Jesus is giving us here is that if someone INSULTS us, we should not INSULT them back which could lead to a larger more serious conflict. We look at this “slap” as being more of an INSULT; otherwise it probably would be more of a punch with a fist rather than a slap.
We have to remember that this statement situation involves individuals and does not apply to governmental affairs. The government is not a personality and has no thoughts or actions of its own. This turning of the other cheek does not refer to the armed forces defending itself against aggressors; or a person defending himself or his family.
The above can not be verified by me, but most of what is written above comes from reputable sources. I do admit, in my own opinion, that it does makes sense to me. Otherwise we would end up being punching bags for anyone wanting to take out their frustrations on us, without retaliation. We must always consider the time, place and circumstances of events when
interpreting their meanings. In this case, Jewish understandings.
p.s. This “slap”, as an insult, was carried forward to later years. The French used this slap, usually with an empty glove hitting the right cheek, as an insult to the one slapped, and usually led to a gun duel where one would usually be killed. If the one who was slapped turned the other cheek, or walked away, this would tell the slapper that the person did not want to duel. To the French, this would be considered an act of coward ness on the one being slapped… However, in Jesus time, this act was considered as a means to a non-violent solution.
If a Frenchman would slap another on both cheeks, one right after another, this would indicate a more serious offense and would almost DEMAND a duel with the one so slapped. This may lead to a situation where a duel was imminent and nothing else would suffice. In this case, I believe both parties were in a situation where they had no choice but to defend themselves.
Again, the above is my interpretation as taken from researching this meaning… Other interpretations are most welcome and certainly invited…
2