Turning the other cheek vs. fighting back

[Della]

When Jesus gave us the instruction to “turn the other cheek,” he wasn’t talking about warfare, but about being insulted. War is not the same thing as being personally insulted.

So many people use the “turn the other cheek” passage to support pacifism, but Jesus was NOT discussing organized warfare nor discussing self defense or the defending of others.

We have to be careful when reading Scripture verses that we don’t read into them more than what is there or take them to mean things the author did not intend. This is more about faulty scriptural interpretation than about violence and how Christians are to deal with it.

And, on the subject of war and defensive actions, the Church has spoken quite clearly, so we don’t have to guess what is right and what is wrong for Christians to do in war or when confronted with a violent aggressor.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

And I say fighting never settles anything, it just sends people to hell, hurts and maims them, even cripples them. It also denies them a chance to repent. We want Heaven’s quota to increase, not hell’s.

 

[CatholicSamurai]

When Jesus gave us the instruction to “turn the other cheek,” he wasn’t talking about warfare, but about being insulted. War is not the same thing as being personally insulted.

So many people use the “turn the other cheek” passage to support pacifism, but Jesus was NOT discussing organized warfare nor discussing self defense or the defending of others.

We have to be careful when reading Scripture verses that we don’t read into them more than what is there or take them to mean things the author did not intend. This is more about faulty scriptural interpretation than about violence and how Christians are to deal with it.

And, on the subject of war and defensive actions, the Church has spoken quite clearly, so we don’t have to guess what is right and what is wrong for Christians to do in war or when confronted with a violent aggressor.

In support of this response… Back in the day (in Jesus’ time), a person would slap with the right hand, not the left. Using the left hand in some cultures is sinister. (I know for one in ancient Japan… left handers or using the left hand was considered sinister so left handed samurai would be forced to use their right hand.) Anyway, so you actually slap someone with the back of your right hand… SLAP and slap him like a slave. By turning the other cheek, you’re forcing the other person to slap you with his left. You’re trying to show the error of the person slapping you. This is what Jesus is trying to say when he said turn the other cheek. I learned this from a theologian at Mundelein seminary here in McHenry, IL, by the way.

 

[CRW]

But what if it’s a woman in self defense?

This does not exclude woman…Your question?

 

[Durendin]

By turning the other cheek, you’re forcing the other person to slap you with his left. You’re trying to show the error of the person slapping you. This is what Jesus is trying to say when he said turn the other cheek. I learned this from a theologian at Mundelein seminary here in McHenry, IL, by the way.

This sort of thing really gets me interested beyond the Scripture, to the heart of the matter, which to me can sometimes be elusive!

Correct me if I’m wrong (as I can’t quote the source), but the part about “carrying the burden an extra mile” is from the right Roman soldiers had in requesting citizens of occupied lands to request help with their loads from the citizenry. It was considered a millitary crime by the Roman army to ask them to go further than a mile as not to overly burden and create resentment of the Roman occupation.

You go the extra mile, the Soldier gets into serious trouble with his superiors. Fighting* without fighting* indeed.

 

[levi86]

Ok, when should one turn the other cheek and when should one fight back?

Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, but he also told his desciples to carry a sword.

He let himself be totally brutalized, but He also drove people out of the temple with a whip.

So, when is each response appropriate?

It seems to me that when one is personally under attack, the turning of the cheek is appropriate, but when someone else is under attack, defending them physically is appropriate.

What do you guys think?

It is not as simple as defending oneself, there must be “aggression” on the part of the attacker. If one was to teach that it is proper to defend ones self from imminent harm it would not be unreasonable that this would include abortion. In many cases we must choose between the life of the Mother and of the child, after all it is the child that is posing the threat. The difference here is that there is no aggression on the part of the unborn child.

The same would apply for the severely mentally handicapped, or those with a mental condition that would prevent them from “knowing right from wrong”. Such an individual may not be under rational or conscious control of their actions, and as a result violence on their part may not be motivated by aggression.

If one was to be attacked by such an individual self defence may not necessarilybe justified.