Turning the other cheek

Turning the other cheek is to respond to an aggressor without violence (in every sense of the word). The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament.

In the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

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

This passage is viewed as promoting nonresistance, pacifism or nonviolence.

Historical origins

The Hebrew Bible, which preceeded the new, has the first reference to turning the other cheek. Lamentations Chapter 3 verse 30 reads "He giveth his cheek to him that smitheth him..."

Some hold that Jesus, while rejecting "eye for an eye," built upon previous Jewish ethical teachings in the Tanakh, "You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your race, but will love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18). See also Expounding of the Law. The idea of "offering one's cheek" to a smiter is also seen in ] 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.cite book | author=John L. Berquist |title=Controlling Corporeality] 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 their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

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:

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.cite book |author=Th. Mommsen |title=Codex Theodosianus 8:5:1|url=http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Constitutiones/CTh08.html#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.cite book |author=Michael Avi-Yonah |title=The Jews Under Roman and Byzantine Rule: A Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest] As a side effect this may also have afforded the early followers a longer time to missionary to the soldier and or cause the soldier not to seek followers of Jesus to carry his equipment in the future so as not to be bothered with their proselitizing.

Righteous personal conduct interpretation

There is a third school of thought in regard 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.

ee also

* Ahimsa
* Christian pacifism
* Mahatma Gandhi
* Diane Drufenbrock
* Satyagraha
* Tolstoyan
* But to bring a sword
* Peace churches

References

Further reading

* Jim Douglass, "Lightning from East to West: Jesus, Gandhi, and the nuclear age", 1983 ISBN 0824505875

External links

* [http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=6889 Christian Nonviolence]
* [http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/6/story_671_1.html&boardID=1107 The Limits of "Turn The Other Cheek"]