Turn the other cheek. Truth or Fiction?

[Gnosis]

In my opinion, Jesus was upholding non-violence as the ultimate spiritual ideal. He demonstrated this perfectly by surrendering himself unto his enemies, for “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”. His devotion to God was so complete, his ability to see God reflected in creation so thorough, his ability to forgive so deep and his self so detached and freed that he gave himself up. His sumbission, his willingness to become the plaything of malicious forces robbed them of the potency of their own ill-driven and warped intentions. Behind evil is selfishness and sadism, and one who submits himself to their hate fueled game out of love passively paralayzes the climax of their derranged desires. As St. Paul put it, Jesus robbed “death of its sting”.

This is not to say that this is applicable in every situation. Even Gandhi said violence was preferable to cowardice. It is to say, I believe, that where the self is concerned, non-violence as the ideal requires the highest degree of courage and committment. It is perhaps, the most selfless act, to never fail to see God even in the most loathsome and ugly expressions of existence…even at one’s own expense.

 

[inJESUS]

Does this help?

Explained by New Testament scholar Walter Wink:
"In his books “Engaging the Powers” and “The Powers That Be,” Wink argues that Jesus rejected two common ways of responding to injustice: violent resistance and passive acceptance. Instead, Jesus advocated a “third way,” an assertive but non-violent form of protest.

The key to understanding Wink’s argument is rigorous attention to the social customs of the Jewish homeland in the first century and what these sayings would have meant in that context.

To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? As Wink emphasizes, you have to act this out in order to get the point: you can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand. (Try it).

But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for “unseemly” uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists".

From Nonviolence in Christian Belief, we have the same explanation:
"“Turn the other cheek”: Try this with a friend (or better still an enemy). Ask your friend to strike you on the face. Which cheek did they hit? Which hand did they use? As most people are right handed the odds are your friend would hit you on the left cheek with his/her right hand. The palm of their right hand would also probably have been a clenched fist as they struck you. But Matthew’s text says “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek.” What sort of strike was being talked about here? OK you say, it’s talking about a strike with the left hand. Again this is ruled out because in the whole Judeo/Greco/Roman world 2,000 years ago, to strike someone with the left hand was totally forbidden as the left hand was considered unclean.

What in fact Jesus was referring to was the right handed back handed (i.e. with the back of the hand) strike imposed as a means of subservience by a Roman master to a slave, of a Roman soldier to a Jewish man, of a Jewish man to a Jewish woman, of a woman to a child, i.e. the oppressor to the oppressed, the superior to the inferior. In Jesus’ audience there would have been Jewish men, women and children, and slaves, who knew exactly what Jesus was referring to.

***So what of Jesus’ command to “Turn the other cheek”? ***Try it with your friend now. You present your friend with your left cheek inviting him/her to strike you again. 2,000 years ago you would have created a dilemma for your adversary. Because firstly the culture prohibits use of the left hand to impose a similar left handed back handed strike to impose subservience: the only alternative is for the person to strike with a clenched fist of the right hand. And herein lies the ‘sting’ - for in the Roman/Greco/Jewish world you could only strike a peer with a fist, i.e. you could only have a fist fight with one your own rank or status. So to hit the person with a fist is to admit they are the same as you in status, rights etc. So by a simple turn of the cheek you have asserted your humanity and attacked the conscience of your oppressor, non-violently".

God Bless!

Jesus’ teachings and the way He taught them never stop to amaze me WISDOME

 

[pumpqeen]

Which is the greatest commandment?

To love thy God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.

Which is the 2nd greatest commandment?

To love thy neighbor as thyself.

Christ said, “Do this, and you will do well”. Did you see anything that says “love yourself more?” No right? What example did Christ set? A master serving his servant in foot washing, a God sacrificing Himself for His created.

The only time that we see Jesus angry was when God’s temple was taken as a marketplace. When His disciple cut off the ear of the soldier who was trying to capture Jesus.

What is God? Love.

What does this tell you about the command “Turn the other cheek”?

A christian lets God do the punishing and lets God work in his life. A man who seeks self whether for selfish gains in material goods or to seek to exert himself by tormenting others or venting his frustration onto others is not a man manifesting God’s love. God is love, and all who abides in Him, abides in love. Moses offered to sacrifice his own life for the failures of the Jews, and not just the physical life, the spiritual! If christians do not have love for the creation of God, especially man, do not appreciate the patience of God for man, how can they work the will of God?

How does one put on Christ, if one cannot bring forth the steadfast love that God has exhibited over the centuries? We can withstand violence against ourselves, but we cannot withstand anything that hurts our God and His people.

I do not know if you believe this. I have backslided much from how I was many years ago. But from my own understanding, at the peak of my spiritual well-being, whoever hurt me was punished and I felt sad for them.

A woman who cheated me of my money had her daughter involved in a brain-damaging car accident. A man whom I know was stealing, confronted me for accusing him. In return his head was bashed in a rugby game, and his nose-bridge broke and went into his skull. A man who schemingly took my job from me was quickly made jobless for close to 3 years before he found another. I was fetching a friend to a place, when another car came right at me, next thing we know, the car was behind me! Both of us don’t even know how it got there. It happened in a split second. Until today, my friend cannot believe what happened.

Sounds terrible, but the bible never lies. I am no longer as spiritual as before, but for those who abide in Him, they can rest assured that they are WELL PROTECTED.

 

[Verita]

Does this help?

Explained by New Testament scholar Walter Wink:
"In his books “Engaging the Powers” and “The Powers That Be,” Wink argues that Jesus rejected two common ways of responding to injustice: violent resistance and passive acceptance. Instead, Jesus advocated a “third way,” an assertive but non-violent form of protest.

The key to understanding Wink’s argument is rigorous attention to the social customs of the Jewish homeland in the first century and what these sayings would have meant in that context.

To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? As Wink emphasizes, you have to act this out in order to get the point: you can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand. (Try it).

But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for “unseemly” uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists".

From Nonviolence in Christian Belief, we have the same explanation:
"“Turn the other cheek”: Try this with a friend (or better still an enemy). Ask your friend to strike you on the face. Which cheek did they hit? Which hand did they use? As most people are right handed the odds are your friend would hit you on the left cheek with his/her right hand. The palm of their right hand would also probably have been a clenched fist as they struck you. But Matthew’s text says “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek.” What sort of strike was being talked about here? OK you say, it’s talking about a strike with the left hand. Again this is ruled out because in the whole Judeo/Greco/Roman world 2,000 years ago, to strike someone with the left hand was totally forbidden as the left hand was considered unclean.

What in fact Jesus was referring to was the right handed back handed (i.e. with the back of the hand) strike imposed as a means of subservience by a Roman master to a slave, of a Roman soldier to a Jewish man, of a Jewish man to a Jewish woman, of a woman to a child, i.e. the oppressor to the oppressed, the superior to the inferior. In Jesus’ audience there would have been Jewish men, women and children, and slaves, who knew exactly what Jesus was referring to.

***So what of Jesus’ command to “Turn the other cheek”? ***Try it with your friend now. You present your friend with your left cheek inviting him/her to strike you again. 2,000 years ago you would have created a dilemma for your adversary. Because firstly the culture prohibits use of the left hand to impose a similar left handed back handed strike to impose subservience: the only alternative is for the person to strike with a clenched fist of the right hand. And herein lies the ‘sting’ - for in the Roman/Greco/Jewish world you could only strike a peer with a fist, i.e. you could only have a fist fight with one your own rank or status. So to hit the person with a fist is to admit they are the same as you in status, rights etc. So by a simple turn of the cheek you have asserted your humanity and attacked the conscience of your oppressor, non-violently".

God Bless!

Amazing. I’ve never heard this before. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Denise_Shae]

Amazing. I’ve never heard this before. Thanks for the insight.

Glad I could be of assistance.

I remembered hearing something to that effect a few years back but couldn’t remember the details.

Jesus often used terms and expressions, particular to His culture, that His audience would be able to understand.

An example would be His parables. Ironically enough, though; His diciples (according to the Gospels) were the only ones that asked Him for explanations of His parables.
The crowds, on the other hand, appeared to know what He was talking about; whether they agreed with Him or not.

God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Amazing. I’ve never heard this before. Thanks for the insight.

P.S. – If you go to Retreat Teachings (they’re audio files), you’ll find more information on Jewish culture back then.

Scroll down and look for the talks on Parables. There are quite a few. Also, the Conversion talks are very good.

God Bless!

 

[Valke2]

Well, I’ve gotten some mixed answers on this question. It there official Church doctrine on this? Does it mean what it seems to imply on its face – not defending oneself against one’s enemies, except for passive resistance? Or does it mean something else, as some have suggested here?

I’ve seen the Gospel quoted as “Thou hast received a blow in the face, make ready the other cheek.” This doesn’t imply right or left. ANyone know which is more accurate?

 

[Verita]

P.S. – If you go to Retreat Teachings by Fr. Benedict Groeschel (they’re audio files), you’ll find more information on Jewish culture back then.

Scroll down and look for the talks on Parables. There are quite a few. Also, the Conversion talks are very good.

God Bless!

Thanks so much!

I was just telling my husband about this over lunch and he was doubtful at first, unsure this was what Jesus really meant. But the way I see it, if this really was the understanding of the culture He was speaking to, then it must be what he meant. To mean something other than the cultural understanding without explaining it would have been deceitful.

This explanation becomes even more profound if you consider that Jesus was speaking to a people in slavery and who longed for a Messiah to defeat their opressors. Jesus would effectively be telling them that violence is not the answer.

 

[Denise_Shae]

Well, I’ve gotten some mixed answers on this question. It there official Church doctrine on this? Does it mean what it seems to imply on its face – not defending oneself against one’s enemies, except for passive resistance? Or does it mean something else, as some have suggested here?

I’ve seen the Gospel quoted as “Thou hast received a blow in the face, make ready the other cheek.” This doesn’t imply right or left. ANyone know which is more accurate?

Hi,

If there is official Church Doctrine with regards to the passage, I haven’t been able to find it… at least not yet.

If/when I do find it, I’ll post it along with a link so you can check it out for yourself.

Also,

RE: “I’ve seen the Gospel quoted as “Thou hast received a blow in the face, make ready the other cheek.””​

Would you please cite the Book, chapter and verse where you saw it, so I can check it out?
There may be commentary on the verse in that particular Gospel. (It also depends on what version of the Bible is being used, as regards to whether or not it has commentary)

Sorry I couldn’t be of more help to you.

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Thanks so much!

I was just telling my husband about this over lunch and he was doubtful at first, unsure this was what Jesus really meant. But the way I see it, if this really was the understanding of the culture He was speaking to, then it must be what he meant. To mean something other than the cultural understanding without explaining it would have been deceitful.

This explanation becomes even more profound if you consider that Jesus was speaking to a people in slavery and who longed for a Messiah to defeat their opressors. Jesus would effectively be telling them that violence is not the answer.

My pleasure.

BTW: You’re going to love those Retreat audios!

I’ve listened to them several time over and continue to learn something new each time.

Fr. Groeschel is a brilliant man. (Although he’d never believe it if someone told him so)

God Bless!

 

[inJESUS]

Well, I’ve gotten some mixed answers on this question. It there official Church doctrine on this? Does it mean what it seems to imply on its face – not defending oneself against one’s enemies, except for passive resistance? Or does it mean something else, as some have suggested here?

I’ve seen the Gospel quoted as “Thou hast received a blow in the face, make ready the other cheek.” This doesn’t imply right or left. ANyone know which is more accurate?

Matthew 5:39 :

But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

all the translations i read so far have the word “right”.

Regarding ufficial doctrine, well i think it is a theological issue just like you can interpret a parable in different ways. The most important thing when dealing with the Bible whether OT or NT is to understand the background and how people back then understood them, and not how people in the 20th century might understand the implication