"Turning the Other Cheek"

[Union Jack]

There is a great misconception, today, on the original meaning of the oft-quoted Christian ideal of "turning the other cheek."

Back in the early days of Christianity, if an owner wished to beat a slave, he would backhand them across the face. It was considered appropiate to backhand a slave, using your palm showed a degree of respect in their culture, and was only used against men of equal social standing.

What Jesus is preaching is not a weak tolerance of punshiments inflicted by others, but a defiance of them. If a master backhanded a slave, turning the other cheek would force the master to strike them with their palm. It may sound weird, but it's true, try it with your friends, have a party.

By turning the other cheek, the slave, or Christian in this case are forcing the Roman/ master to show them the respect due of other men.

I felt compelled to write this after encountering this misconception in many posts in this section, and to serve as a warning against taking statements out of their original cultural context.

[MikeK]

Well. Speaking of taking something out of context...

Let's see the phrasing of Jesus in the context of The Sermon on the Mount.

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.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; -Matthew 5:38-44

I don't quite know how you can reconcile your statements with this passage...in its context. Sure, maybe Jesus meant it as a means of defiance, but then I'd be interested to hear you explain the cultural context of "if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you" etc...

This is your defiance? It seems to me that you took the four words "turn the other cheek" out of the context of what He was saying.

By the way, I'm not just being facetious or smarmy. I'd really like to hear how you reconcile that. Please explain those other passages in the Sermon, and how you believe that they have been taken out of context.

[Union Jack]

He says turn the other cheek at other points.

Check this out, it is a brief explannation, but a good one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek

[MikeK]

I will read that article. I can't right this second because I'm short for time, but you haven't really answered my question. How do you reconcile your original statements with everything else that Jesus said, particularly in the verses that I quoted? Everything that He said that accords so well with the traditional Christian understanding of "turn the other cheek", and which is in such discordance with your original post?

[Regit]

There is a great misconception, today, on the original meaning of the oft-quoted Christian ideal of "turning the other cheek."

Back in the early days of Christianity, if an owner wished to beat a slave, he would backhand them across the face. It was considered appropiate to backhand a slave, using your palm showed a degree of respect in their culture, and was only used against men of equal social standing.

What Jesus is preaching is not a weak tolerance of punshiments inflicted by others, but a defiance of them. If a master backhanded a slave, turning the other cheek would force the master to strike them with their palm. It may sound weird, but it's true, try it with your friends, have a party.

By turning the other cheek, the slave, or Christian in this case are forcing the Roman/ master to show them the respect due of other men.

I felt compelled to write this after encountering this misconception in many posts in this section, and to serve as a warning against taking statements out of their original cultural context.

I have read the page Union Jack. It presents what you said as one of the interpretations. It also presents the other interpretations which stay true with the teachings of Jesus. And at no point it suggests or gives evidence to suggest that which interpretation was correct. So now I ask you, did you rely on this document alone to state that the other interpretations were "misconceptions"? Do you have any document which favours the 'historical and figurative' interpretation to support your statement? Do you have any document that also claims that the 'nonresistence literal' and the 'righteous personal conduct' interpretations are misconceptions? Because this page tells me where you get your ideas from, but it does not support your argument at all.

[Union Jack]

I too apologize for the brevity of my previous statement, I had to leave for work.

I am not saying that the common interpretation is bad, surely not. Jesus certainly preached tolerance and forgiveness, however, what I am presenting is an alternative viewpoint which relies upon the Greek to Hebrew translations, and the original cultural context.

It could mean both when he said it, he could have meant forgive others, and force them to treat you as equals. I am not certain.
I was only trying to highlight an oft over-shadowed interpretation of the quote.