turning the other cheek?

[Airien]

I was reading Mathew last week and that famous part from the Sermon on the Mount still gives me problems:

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

—Matthew 5:38–5:42 KJV

I’ve always had problems with this in taking it to mean some kind of suicidal pacifism. Now, given the context of the rest of the Bible this seems to be incorrect to me. So I Googled up some interpretations of the passage. Oddly enough it was Wikipedia (!?) that gave what reads to me to be the most sensible interpretation:

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 his back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy:

10 ¶ When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.
11 Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee.
12 And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge:

13 In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee: and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God.
—Deuteronomy 24:10–13 KJV
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 just the naked, as seen in Noah’s case:

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 KJV
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]

The problem is I don’t know if this is actually the one theologians would agree on.

Help?

 

[Aloysium]

We are to love our enemies. Because someone strikes or steals from you does not necessitate that one must respond in kind. There are social and spiritual consequences to evil acts. I understand turning the other cheek and giving one’s cloak as a message to the other that as brothers in Christ, we are commanded to love one another. In spite of the enmity shown to me, I, through my action, I communicate my love to him. The response is not intended to get the other to stop, but to comment on his behavior and demonstrate how we are to relate to each other.

 

[Deus_tecum]

I think it applies today in terms of verbal interaction. With hot button topics such as abortion and gay marriage, the proponents can become very emotional, and since their view is not based on truth, they try to insult others to shut them up. “Turn the other cheek” in this case would be to ignore the insult. A literal interpretation of “turn the other cheek” and “give him your shirt” would have the Christian destitute and crippled within a week in some US neighborhoods.

 

[ready]

You should go to the following link for a good Catholic commentary on this Bible passage. veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea. Catena Aurea is St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentary.

 

[marymary1975]

Have you ever wonder what Jesus do when the Roman centuries smacked him on the face? Dis Jesus put the other cheek so the centuries would smacked him on the other cheek? No, he didn’t! Instead of putting the other cheek he replied why do you hit me? If I have spoken wrongly… but if I am right why do you strike me (sorry don’t remember exact words but goes along that). That gives eight there the answer. We are to love our enemies but we can’t tolerate injustice. We can’t react violently to violent acts but that doesn’t mean we have to allow the world walk over us. I would put it as some kind of pacific reaistance.