quote:

---

Turn the Other Cheek
"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day's wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but "if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz." But damages for indignity were not paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7).
A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission.

Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three of the examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims ("If anyone strikes you...wants to sue you...forces you to go one mile..."). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial occupation.
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me."
Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality. Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such "cheeky" behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating."

http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

So we are supposed to give our coat and shirt when someone just asks for our coat. We are supposed to go two miles when only forced to go one. We are supposed to turn the other cheek when we are smacked. Just how far do we take this? What if someone closes their fist and hits us, do we still let ourselves get beaten? What if they use a baseball bat? What if they use a gun? What if they are planning to kill us? What if they have rape on their mind?

If a man strikes you on your cheek, run away before he can hurt you more? Stand up for yourself?

I've been talking to a friend about this, and I don't know. When, if ever, should we run away or fight back. I think it's good to defend the weak, but is it ok to defend ourselves. Matthew 5: 38-42 seems to be saying self-defense is no excuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
God would not have created us with a "fight or flight" hormone if that were the case.

It's more than ok to defend ourselves. It's almost an automatic response to danger. It is physiological as well. He created us with survival mechanisms in place. There are situations though, where we really could safely "turn the other cheek" and have it be a testimony of God's grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mayflower

.
JET wrote:

quote:

---

I noticed that Iconoclast mentioned Walter Wink
over in the Satan thread. Wink also has a lot to say about "turning the other cheek" (which he sees as a form of non-violent resistence). Do a Google search. I think there's quite a bit of his stuff available on the internet.

---

.
WOW.
Thank you, JET.

---

quote:

---

Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position

---

• Genesis 4
  
  23 Lamech said to his wives,
  
  "Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
  wives of Lamech, hear my words.
  I have killed a man for wounding me,
  a young man for injuring me.
  24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
  then Lamech seventy-seven times."



• Matthew 18
  
  21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
  22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

quote:

---

Meet force with ridicule or humor
Break the cycle of humiliation
Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position
Expose the injustice of the system
Take control of the power dynamic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

I don't know... Is it passive aggressive social activism or is it just love?

quote:

---

Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position

---

This seems to be the opposite of Christianity. Jesus humbled himself and died for people who didn't deserve it. "Offer to submit and assume the inferior position" sounds more like Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Meet force with ridicule or humor
Break the cycle of humiliation
Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position
Expose the injustice of the system
Take control of the power dynamic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

quote:

---

Meet force with ridicule or humor
Break the cycle of humiliation
Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position
Expose the injustice of the system
Take control of the power dynamic

---

Jesus was respectful to the authorities who killed him.
He freely accepted humiliation.
He refused not to submit or to accept the superior position.
Exposing injustices I'm fine with.
Jesus pointed out that he was able to take control, but instead He submitted.

---