Turn the other cheek

Encyclopedia : T : TU : TUR : Turn the other cheek

Turn the other cheek is a famous phrase taken from the Expounding of the Law in the Christian New Testament. In Jesus' Expounding of the Law in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

A parallel version is offered in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke:

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

Some interpret this as promoting nonresistance, pacifism or nonviolence.

Contents

1 Historical origins
2 Interpretations

2.1 Nonresistance literal interpretation
2.2 Historical, figurative interpretation
2.3 Righteous personal conduct interpretation

3 Criticism
4 See also
5 External references

Historical origins

Some hold that Jesus, while rejecting "eye for an eye," built upon previous Jewish ethical teachings in the Hebrew Bible, "You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your race, but will love your neighbour as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18). It is also thought to be possible that Jesus was influenced by the teachings of the Pharisee Hillel the Elder who is famously quoted as describing the Golden Rule to be an effective summation of the Torah, and also "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" (Pirkei Avot 1:14) In this way, personal dignity is both to be given to your brother and demanded for yourself.

An analogous sentiment is spoken by Socrates in his conversation with Crito in 399 BC before his execution in Athens. “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” This moral guides Socrates in his argument to a conclusion that he should not attempt to escape from punishment despite being wrongfully imprisoned. From the Grube translation of Crito found in Plato's Five Dialogues revised by Cooper.

Interpretations

This phrase, as with much of the Sermon on the Mount, has been subjected to both literal and figurative interpretations.

Nonresistance literal interpretation

This passage has been interpreted as an injunction of nonviolent resistance, and a teaching that it is wrong to commit violence, even in self-defense or retaliation.

While literalist supporters argue there is a truly radical breakthrough contained in this teaching that can only be appreciated by understanding it literally, the shocking and often considered foolish import of the passage has spawned many non-literal interpretations and justifications. Jewish commentator Joseph Telushkin has noted that "every nation with a large Christian population has at times chosen to disregard or reinterpret Jesus' words [about turning the other cheek]." One justification argues that the reason for turning the other cheek is the hope that the other person's conscience would be pricked and he would not slap the other cheek, thus preventing a quarrel from really getting started.

Another variation of this interpretation can be further clarified by Paul in Romans 12:19.

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19, NIV)

Here the point isn't that the criminal goes unpunished forever, but that the victim places the punishment of the perpetrator in God's hands. The logic is that only God can punish justly, whereas mankind in their sin and fallibility can not. In one sense, turning the other cheek is to test the will of the person inflicting the strike in the first place. It gives that person a chance to not strike the second blow even though the vulnerable cheek is offered, and thus to set foot on the road to salvation. In contrast to the criminal who will be punished, to turn the other cheek shows that the receiver of the strike is of pious temperment, surely bound for the glory of heaven.

Since this passage calls for total nonviolence, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, it has led some to Christian anarchism, most notably Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, author of the nonfiction book The Kingdom of God is Within You.

Historical, figurative interpretation

Those interpreting this passage figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. They note that 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. 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. The other alternative would be to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. Further, it is argued, by handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

"When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God."

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 the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

"Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness."

Promoters of this nonviolent interpretation further argue that the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law: commonly invoked Roman law allowed a Roman soldier to demand that citizens of occupied territories carry the soldier's military gear for one mile, but prohibited the soldier from forcing an individual to go further than one mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. 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.

Righteous personal conduct interpretation

There is a third school of thought in regards to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

Some point out that Jesus said "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" from Luke 22:36 and the Old Testament laws regarding killing in self-defense to support this view. However, even Luke 22:36 could have been figurative as in Luke 22:38 the disciples point out that they have two swords among the twelve of them, to which Jesus replies "That is enough." If Jesus meant his statement to be taken literally then twelve swords would have been required, not two.

Criticism

Many Christians and non-Christians who interpret the passage literally have criticised this teaching as unworkable in practice, and potentially immoral, as it gives rewards in this life to those who commit acts of violence, without countering them with self-defense or acts of justice.

Advocates for nonresistance insist such criticisms of immorality fail to see the potential power of good responding to evil.

Advocates of nonviolence maintain that the teaching actually does support self-defense, and in fact puts forth multiple examples of nonviolent methods for defending one's dignity.

External references

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.