Turn the Other Cheek – What Could Jesus Have Meant?

[HarryStotle]

The reason for this thread is to come to a better understanding of Jesus’ injunction to “turn the other cheek.”

Some interpretations – including possibly the most typical one – imply that we ought to present no obstacle to evil.

That interpretation, however, just seems incorrect because it entails disarming oneself in the face of evil. Intuitively, there seems something wrong with that as a long term strategy regarding maintaining a just society.

I will make use of a number of individual commentaries and analyses to try to build a case for how the passage (perhaps) ought to be properly interpreted.

Here is Luke’s version of Jesus’ teaching:

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

I will post several longish sections in this thread, but leave time for response between each one.

The first part follows.

 

[HarryStotle]

Part 1. Bishop Robert Barron on Turn the Other Cheek​

“There are two classical responses to violence: fight or flight. Faced with a threat, we typically either fight back or run away—and sometimes this is all we reasonably can do. However, we also know that neither of these strategies is particularly efficacious in the long run. Fighting fire with fire usually just exacerbates the problem (as Gandhi said, “an eye for an eye, making the whole world blind”); and acquiescing to violence confirms the perpetrator’s injustice.

What Jesus proposed was a third way: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn and give him the other.” No one in Jesus’ time would have used the unclean left hand for any kind of social interaction. Therefore, to strike someone on the right cheek was to hit him with the back of the hand, and this was a gesture of contempt, reserved for slaves and social inferiors. Faced with this kind of aggression, Jesus says, one should neither fight back nor flee; rather one should stand one’s ground and turn the other cheek. He thereby signals to the aggressor that he refuses to live in that person’s spiritual and psychological space. And he mirrors back the aggressor’s aggression, shaming him into self-awareness and prompting conversion.

Naïve? Impractical? Tell that to Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and John Paul II, all of whom effected massive social changes through creative employment of Jesus’ teaching. The Christian Churches need to recover their confidence in this method and to teach it, at the very least to their own congregants.”
Quoted in: Turn the other Cheek? | Simplemama

The key idea here is that turning the other cheek is actually an injunction not to give into evil nor respond in kind, but to stand one’s ground in the face of it.

The problem that arises is that not all aggressors will be shamed “into self-awareness” nor prompted into “conversion.”

It also doesn’t address the question of what then? What if the aggressor or perpetrator continues their aggression?

Is Jesus silent on that?

 

[HarryStotle]

Part 2. Ancient Context of Jesus' Teaching​

There is no way to properly understand what Jesus was talking about when he said turn the other cheek , go the second mile, or give them your cloak, without understanding the context of his saying these in the first century.
Turn the Other Cheek. When you are struck on the right cheek, you are backhanded by the right hand of a superior. When you turn the other cheek, you force the superior to use his left hand – the unseemly or sinister hand. (Sinistra means “evil” or “threatening” in Latin, but the same meaning was common in Mediterranean cultures.) By forcing the superior to use his left hand you are effectively disorienting the hierarchy and his status in it by causing the person to act below his station. If he continues to use his left hand, he is effectively acting from a malicious, sinister or contemptible motive.

Going the Second Mile. Roman soldiers could compel Jews to carry their gear for one mile but never a second mile. By going the second mile, someone who follows Jesus’ prescription puts the Roman soldier in the position of disobeying standard orders and in the position of not knowing when his gear would be returned. It leaves him in the awkward situation of having to reveal his underlying original intention along with the extent to which he is willing to act with malice, so to speak. This effectively upends his position of superiority by placing the onus on him to act outside the domain of normative or prescribed military convention.

Give Them Also Your Cloak. Most common folk in ancient cultures had an outer coat and an inner shirt or cloak. If someone asks you for your coat, and you give them also your cloak they are effectively making you naked. In ancient middle eastern culture the shame was attached to the person viewing a naked body, not to the naked person themselves. That would mean if they did not return both your coat and your cloak, they would be revealing themselves as shameless perpetrators. The shame would be on their head.

The above points summarizing the historical context within which Jesus spoke his words were taken from the following video by Robin Meyers PhD.

In each of these examples, what Jesus’ prescribed response actually does is show up the perpetrator of the original act as being the one in the wrong, and, therefore, on the side of malevolence and dishonourable action.

It is effectively “outing” the person for committing an evil act if they do not move to quickly rectify the situation by not striking the other cheek, by giving back the coat, or not forcing anyone to carry the burden that is up to them to shoulder themselves.

The important point, then, is that following these prescriptions of Jesus, the malevolent motives of the perpetrator are shown to be determinably from evil or malice rather than some other motive – if the person continues beyond the threshold set by Jesus’ prescribed action.

It separates those who merely happen to be at enmity with us (for whatever reason) from those who are determined to commit evil.

 

[Nelka]

Turn the other cheek = No vengeance.

 

[HarryStotle]

Turn the other cheek = No vengeance.

Being willing to turn the other cheek does reveal control over your own vengefulness, but it is also intended to reveal something about the other person – their commitment to doing evil for evil’s sake.

It has a twofold purpose. So the question is: what to do once you know with certainty that you are not acting merely to be vengeful but the other person continues to aggress?

How then do we respond?

Just cave?

 

[Seagull]

It seems to me to be a strong sign of repentance-
A form of high level mortification -
for those who are strong enough to accept it.
I read, in Book of Lamentations, today

“He sitteth alone and keepth silence.
He putteth his mouth in the dust;
if so be - there - may be hope.
He giveth his cheek to him who smiteth him.
He is - filled full with reproach “

No doubt, strong stuff.

 

[HarryStotle]

It seems to me to be a strong sign of repentance-
A form of high level mortification -
for those who are strong enough to accept it.
I read, in Book of Lamentations, today

“He sitteth alone and keepth silence.
He putteth his mouth in the dust;
if so be - there - may be hope.
He giveth his cheek to him who smiteth him.
He is - filled full with reproach “

No doubt, strong stuff.

I see your point and I do agree it is "strong stuff.’

But what do you suppose it means to be filled full with reproach?

Is it the one who “giveth his cheek to him who smiteth him,” who is thereby filled with reproach?

In which case, how is that not merely the same as stewing in an emotional brew of vengeance?

 

[Seagull]

In the context of Lamentations - Jerusalem was taken over by the enemy, as a punishment - sent directly from God himself. Now, it’s too late to heed to what Jeremiah warned and warned. The enemy raped the women, burned the sanctuaries, killed many, made slaves of younger men, etc.

I think that’s what is meant by being filled with reproach…sitting and hiding in shame…shame based…hardly stewing in vengeance. Nothing could be done.

I think the captivity was for 70 years.
The Jews - had to be slapped- by the enemy.
Just like Jesus slapped by the Roman guard.
“ talk to the high priest so “ ? - SLAP ) ) ) ! ,

 

[Lev]

The key idea here is that turning the other cheek is actually an injunction not to give into evil nor respond in kind, but to stand one’s ground in the face of it.

The problem that arises is that not all aggressors will be shamed “into self-awareness” nor prompted into “conversion.”

It also doesn’t address the question of what then? What if the aggressor or perpetrator continues their aggression?

Is Jesus silent on that?

The question goes to the heart of faith in Christ. He opened the gates of heaven and showed us the way there. When he passively allowed evil to destroy Him, His concern was not “what now?” He was aware that He had fulfilled a great triumph over evil and weakened its invisible basis no end. We participate in that mystical work of Christ as well when we say no to the mentality of war and the culture of death it creates. Not every triumph over evil can be quantified by a ledger. Faith in the heaven we hope to one day be, gives us courage to be radical peacemakers like Christ.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The key idea here is that turning the other cheek is actually an injunction not to give into evil nor respond in kind, but to stand one’s ground in the face of it.

The problem that arises is that not all aggressors will be shamed “into self-awareness” nor prompted into “conversion.”

It also doesn’t address the question of what then? What if the aggressor or perpetrator continues their aggression?

Is Jesus silent on that?

The question goes to the heart of faith in Christ. He opened the gates of heaven and showed us the way there. When he passively allowed evil to destroy Him, His concern was not “what now?”

Actually, his concern HAD TO BE “what now?” because he resurrected from the dead and founded a Church, so the crucial question for each of us who are part of that Church, is precisely “what now?”

We live in a world where evil reigns.

Perhaps the solution is simply to “passively allow” evil to destroy us, but it isn’t clear to me that that is so.

Take, for example, Jesus’ last words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani!” My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Was Jesus passively allowing himself to be destroyed, or was he pointing to his Church and revealing its role as his kingdom in the world?

His words are the opening to Psalm 22.

That Psalm ends with…

Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
that he has done it.

What has he done?

He has done what was asked of him by the Psalmist…

Deliver my soul from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dog!
Save me from the mouth of the lion!
You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!

From the dogs and bulls and lions who…

… open wide their mouths at me,
… have pierced my hands and feet
…count all my bones
…stare and gloat over me;
…divide my garments among them,
…and for my clothing they cast lots.

In other words, justice will be done.

The question is how, and when, and by whose hand?

Does it mean justice will not be done on this earth but only in the afterlife and never by human hands?

What does “the meek shall inherit the earth” mean if the meek passively allow themselves to be destroyed on that earth?

 

[TheLittleLady]

It means we should behave as Christ did through His passion.

That most of us fail and have too much pride

 

[HarryStotle]

It means we should behave as Christ did through His passion.

Does that mean we and he (Jesus/God) ought to always remain passive in the face of evil?

So evil will be permitted to have the final word?

That most of us fail and have too much pride

Perhaps, and how are we to know what is from pride and what isn’t?

Isn’t pride the opposite of humility?

So the virtues that sit opposite the vice of pride are not timidity or cowardice, are they?

Granted, Christ did submit to torture and execution, but he also predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and – as a result of the coming of the Kingdom of God, as ushered in by Jesus and prophesied by Daniel and John the Baptist – the fall of the Roman Empire.

All of these were, shall we say, ordained by God before they occurred.

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)

“And in the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever… (Daniel 2:44-45)

“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (Dan 9: 24-27)

In a sense, justice was poured out on Rome and the leaders of the Jewish people for what they did, so it isn’t as if evil – deicide – was simply permitted without repercussions.

Justice was, even in the interim, and before the second coming, fulfilled.

 

[HarryStotle]

Part 3. The Principle of Justice​

If someone slaps you on the cheek, are you acting justly if you slap them back? Jesus seems to be saying you are not when he advises “Turn the other cheek.” But is he making that advice a universal principle of justice or morality? Or is he advising a tactical response to evil for some other purpose?

I say the latter.

A sociopath prone to malevolence will view kindness as a weakness and turning the other cheek will function to increase his predatory behaviour. Someone who has made an error in judgement and has a strong conscience may be helped to reform their ways if they are treated with kindness – so turning the other cheek may work with them.

There are, however, two considerations when making a judgement on when and whether to turn the other cheek:
1) a deep knowledge of human nature, and
2) a strong sense of justice and what it is that constitutes the true good.

When do we turn the other cheek and when do we resort to unmitigated justice?

When someone resorts to a specific behaviour they are tacitly universalizing that behaviour and claiming not merely that it is right for them to resort to it, but for anyone to do so. Someone who steals is really saying “Take what you want, there are no property rights,” so they cannot object when something is stolen from them.

Justice can be better understood by universalizing the person’s innate or working principle. Anyone who initiates an action cannot justly complain if that same action is used on them in return. Their mere carrying out of that action is to tacitly endorse it as proper, morally speaking.

If I hit someone for no reason, I am saying, by that very act, that it is right to hit others for no reason, so I cannot complain if someone else tries to do the same to me and hits me for no reason. I cannot appeal to fairness or justice after I have already openly committed to endorsing that hitting others for no reason is okay.

To assume I alone can get away with bad things like hitting or am, myself, solely exempt from the rules that I set by my own behaviour is fundamentally being unjust. If I hit someone for no reason and they hit me back, but then I complain about their violence towards me and ignore my own towards them, that demonstrates a fundamental disregard for justice itself. I expect to be treated differently than everyone else who is like me – I am transgressing the basic law of logic, that of “treat like things alike.”

Part 3, Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

By complaining that someone has wronged me, I recognize that there is something wrong in hitting others for no reason, yet I want to be able to hit others with impunity free of any rule of justice and for no reason.
People who attempt to justify or excuse their own behaviour while at the same time condemning that same behaviour in others are being fundamentally unjust and turning the other cheek will simply give them licence to act unjustly. Perhaps, we ought not turn the other cheek with these types, precisely because they are acting malevolently if they persist after the other cheek has been turned.

Whatever people justify or excuse, they will repeat – that is the reason they are attempting to justify themselves in the first place. If a child steals a candy bar and when caught they try to find a way to “get off the hook” they are very likely to have a predilection for stealing again. If they break down in tears and genuinely feel awful remorse they likely will not. They see the wrongness of their actions. Mercy, forgiveness (writing off or forgiving debts owed) and turning the other cheek will have a positive effect with these, but not with those who seek to excuse or justify their bad behaviour out of malevolence.

If someone is trying to justify their immoral actions against you and you do not hold them accountable or act against them – call the police, defend yourself proportionately, expect proportional restitution, etc., – you are complicit in the repetition of their behaviour. You are, in effect, giving them licence to do the action again and enabling them to harm others by effectively letting them off the hook.

Self-defence is a perfectly valid principle because by attacking you unprovoked they are tacitly saying it is proper to attack others for no reason, so they have no grounds for complaining when you act against them to stop their aggression – act in self-defence.

A fundamentally unjust person has given up any recourse to any principle of justice in their defence. If they do complain, then obviously they are claiming to be above justice in order to excuse or get away with their own acts of injustice. They are choosing not to treat like things alike, but are acting purely to gain unjust and unmerited advantage over others.

More thoroughly addressed here:

 

[HarryStotle]

Part 4. A Moral World and Turning the Other Cheek​

One goal of moral behaviour is to reduce the overall level of immorality or evil in the world. Just as the point of being a doctor is to reduce ill-health, the point of being a moral person is to reduce evil and immorality in the world – in yourself first, but also genuinely in others by not creating or propping up unjust persons, situations or opportunities.

There are times when turning the other cheek will reduce immorality, but there are times when it will provide “cover” and opportunity for immoral persons and escalate the overall level of immorality. Appeasement does not solve the problem of escalating immorality.

Is the person trying to justify the evil they do? If so, then turning the other cheek will only serve to reward the behaviour they are trying to get away with. If they have a conscience then turning the other cheek – exemplifying your empathy and understanding – permits them to avoid some of the “sting” of their moral transgression and perhaps help them in their stumbling attempts to be moral. The world is a difficult place.

However, if they are intent on getting away with immoral actions, then one of their goals would be to paralyze retribution or retaliation.

There are two ways to paralyze retribution or retaliation:

1. adamantly preach “turn the other cheek” regardless of behaviour or context, or
2. claim that all responses to aggression are unjust.
   

How is it a fix for past moral injustice to inflict people living in the here and now the same injustices that were inflicted on others in the past?

Perhaps the only reason words like Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, etc., have any real effect is that they are used on people who are determinably NOT homophobic, racist, sexist, etc., If those individuals were any of those things, the words would have no real effect.

A true racist would merely say, “Yeah, so what?”

The epiteths are really intended to stop all discussion on what it really means to be racist, sexist, etc., in order to shut people up by calling them names – it functions to excuse real racism, sexism, and other immoral views from the side using them by deflecting all possible accusations in a pre-emptive attack meant to nullify any possible response.

From: On Taking Your Chimp to the Beautician by Doug Wilson:
And so if you want to identify the bigots in any situation, then look for the screechers. Look for the people who are shouting everyone else down. Look for the coercion. In response to this the liberals
say, “It is not like that at all.”
“How is it not like that?” I ask.
“Shut up,” they explain.

 

[Psychae]

I’ve always thought “Turn the other cheek” meant meekness, as in one’s personal life. Like, not having to have things your way all the time. So when my kids or husband complain about dinner or get picky or whatever, I try to not get all offended over it.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’ve always thought “Turn the other cheek” meant meekness, as in one’s personal life. Like, not having to have things your way all the time. So when my kids or husband complain about dinner or get picky or whatever, I try to not get all offended over it.

I have another part looking at the word meekness.

Is there a balance between “not getting offended” and having a right to be offended?

Or between “not having things your way all the time” and a time for having things the right way even if that way happens to be yours?

Is it possible that some kind of detachment from ego will permit us to view things around us objectively, fairly and with a proper sense of justice?

In other words, are we NEVER to get offended and NEVER get our way?

Or should we work on building a society where it is clear when some ought to get their way and when some ought to be properly offended?

I am not, by the way, a big fan of political correctness, trigger warnings nor some alleged right that people have to never be offended.

 

[Kei]

Well, what better way to see what we should really do when slapped than see what Jesus Christ Himself did when this happened?

He asked why this has happened in a way to incite reflection.

 

[HarryStotle]

Well, what better way to see what we should really do when slapped than see what Jesus Christ Himself did when this happened?

He asked why this has happened in a way to incite reflection.

So, by way of reflection, is there a difference after being slapped once and turning the other cheek, between…

1 … someone who refrains from slapping you again, and
2 … someone who goes ahead and slaps you again?

I say there is, and that is precisely the threshold Jesus is alluding to as marking the distinction between someone who is currently at enmity with you and others (an enemy, whom we are enjoined to love,) and someone who is acting malevolently or out of malicious intent.

The question is: What ought to be done in the case of the second?

You have run out of cheeks, no?

Well, I suppose there are two more, but turning one of those might be taken as unnecessarily provocative.

 

[Psychae]

Is there a balance between “not getting offended” and having a right to be offended?

“Be angry and do not sin.” So, yeah, its fine to feel angry or feel offended as long as you don’t sin because of it. Feelings don’t make a sin. Also, there’s righteous anger, like what I get when people start trash-talking the Pope.

are we NEVER to get offended and NEVER get our way?

Totally fine to get offended but that’s just a feeling which is unnecessary and inconvenient, IMO. Doing something because you feel offended, like retaliate, would be a no-no. None of us need to “get our way,” ever. The point of life is to become selfless like Christ.

should we work on building a society where it is clear when some ought to get their way and when some ought to be properly offended?

Nope, we need to work on building a society where everyone realizes that getting your way and getting offended and stuff like that just doesn’t matter so much. Its not the point of life, so why bother?