Reader Email: What Does "Turn the Other Cheek" Really Mean?

By Selwyn Duke

Today I'm going to respond to a reader who had a question relating to my last article, "Which Side Really Inspires Violence, the Right or Left?"  Here is the email the reader, LR, sent:

Dear Mr. Duke,
Your latest column was well done; I like your inexorable logic.  The question I'm asking is inspired by a "tidbit" in the article - the "turn the other cheek" reference.  While I don't have a Bible in hand, I believe I can fairly well remember the passages I refer to.  In Matthew, Jesus says, "Resist not evil ... turn the other cheek."  In James, however, we are told, "Resist the devil and he will flee."  Seemingly, these passages contradict one another, but I'm certain that the paradox can be reconciled.  My question is, how would you do so? Thanks!

Dear LR,

Thank you for writing.  Your question is actually something I've long wanted to address, and here is my answer.

As G.K. Chesterton said while debating Clarence Darrow (of Scopes Monkey Trial fame) in 1931, "The Bible is a much bigger thing than the little thing some people try to make it."  So many people — and I realize you're not among them, LR — diminish the Bible by insisting on viewing it literally.  Now, while I lay no claim to being a biblical scholar, I realize that, like all works, it is rich in allegory, in figurative language.  Additionally, many references in Scripture cannot be placed in context without understanding the cultural peculiarities of the times and places in which biblical figures lived.

In Matthew 5:38-39, 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."

Now, the question is, why did Jesus specify the right cheek?  Was this an extraneous adjective?  Or, like the word "Congress" in the First Amendment, is it an often overlooked word that places the passage in which it's found in perspective?  Well, let's read what scholar Walter Wink wrote on the subject:

A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.

Thus, if this interpretation is correct (and it has long been my understanding), Jesus was not advising sheep-like passivity; rather, he was providing the oppressed with a tactic for effective defiance.  Obviously, there was no ACLU in Roman times; an inferior couldn't drag Pontius Pilate into court.  And violent resistance was futile and could mean your death.  So Jesus' prescription was perhaps people's only recourse, and it was brilliant.

Think about it: You're a Jew and you've been backhanded on your right cheek by a Roman soldier.  By turning the left to him, you're turning the tables on him — in a sense.  You're sending the message that you've retained your dignity, that you won't be cowed or demeaned.  Now, what is the soldier to do?   Those cultural and legal proscriptions prevent him from backhanding you with his left hand on your left cheek, which you've now presented to him, and if he strikes you normally with his right fist, he is then treating you as an equal.  And this would defeat the purpose of the strike.  As Wink wrote, ". . . the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality."  And whether or not the tactic was foolproof isn't the issue.  The point is that it provided powerless people with some recourse. 

When viewed in this light, it's apparent that "turn the other cheek" doesn't contradict "Resist the Devil and he will flee" but reinforces it.  They both involve opposing evil; however, while the latter is a rather general statement, the former is a specific one advocating a tactic relevant in a certain time, place and culture.  

So we should all understand that we have a duty to try to thwart evil.  Of course, how that can best be done in a given situation is a different matter.

                         © 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Ray Hicks]

Selwyn…Let’s make sure I got this straight:

If you backhand a guy on his right cheek with your left hand-thumb down, that’s okay? But, if you punch him in the mouth…Oh-Oh…Yellow Card: It costs you 475 zuz and three box tops from your breakfast cereal of choice. But, if you bitch-slap him on his left cheek with your right hand and he’s a Roman solider below the rank of Centurion; that’s 250 zuz, a night in jail and forfeiture of three sheep to the state. But, a snap kick to the groin is fair, as long as it’s a Wednesday in an even numbered year. Otherwise in all circumstances, you have to bend over and take ten whacks on the keester with a wooden cooking spoon and miss a turn before you can go to heaven.

Simple…Got it! There…that was easy, right.

...Ray

[Philip France]

Brother Ray,

May I be the first to proclaim that your hayseed humor is tiresome? You said that you were going to resign. I am counting the beats.

I would like to comment on this interestin exchange between our beloved Selwyn Duke and one of his subscribers. It is late, I am tired and I will wait until I am more mentally prepared to comment. Might I suggest that you try this novel idea?

Smooches,

Philip

[adrienne]

Selwyn,

You made sense out of an apparent contradiction that has confused me in the past. Thanks for resolving this with clarity and insight.

Adrienne

[Walt]

Thank you Selwyn for posting the reader response, I had not heard that conclusion on that bit of scripture. Cultural perspective is so important in fully understanding the Bible and its intended message. I amost hate to quote the godless Ayn Rand here but it seems fitting.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." Ayn Rand

The Truth does exist but you must seek it out.

[Walt]

Philip,

Starting a blog page is easy and you can retain your privacy if you wish. I use Blogspot. My blog doesen't get read too much but it is a kind of tension release. If somethiong is bothering me I get it on paper (or in the computer) and get it out of my head so I can move on to new things...I am almost obsessive compulsive in that regard. I also post letters to congressmen and such from freinds (as I see fit...I have the POWER). If you choose to start a blog page and post your Paul paper I would love to read it.

http://waltswisdom.blogspot.com/

Walt

[Walt]

Sorry posted on the wrong thread

[Ray Hicks]

-----------------------“Smooches!” – “Smooches?” ----------------------------

Phillip…Stop with the homoerotic stuff! If I was interested in that, I’d go to church. But No…I come here and don’t want you to start intellectually fondling me. (I’m not being judgmental about that mind you.) But, from your syntax I think that maybe you come from another century (or planet actually) and don’t grasp some subtleties that you would otherwise get. So, I’ve got to tell you straight out. Keep you hands, so to speak, to yourself. You’re correct, I was thinking of pulling out of this site (no pun intended.) But, in all candor… “I just can’t quit you.”

Your Understanding Brother...Ray

[Ray Hicks]

Okay...It's Friday night. I'm all alone and looking out over the Bay. Hoping that soon, we can "opine" together on some deep topic or other.

...Ray

[Philip France]

My dear friend Walt,

I thank you for your advice, but I have avoided the "blogosphere" because of time. I just don't have it and I know that I am one to want to declare my opions and share the knowledge that I have acquired.

The fact remains that I am single father, and sole responsible parent to a teenage girl (whom I am so very proud of and who is the delight of my life). My son is grown up and out of the house, but he is younger than 21 and still requires my support and guidance. Add to this that I enjoy a lovely romantic relationship with a beauiful lady that I adore. Bottom line: I do not wish to get sucked into blogging. I know myself and I will indulge the need to express myself to excess.

I did visit your blog. My compliments. It is nicely laid out. The tone, texture and fonts are very appealing to the eye. It is very well-constructed. Do you have a means whereby I might upload my study of the Apostle Paul to you? I did not see a manner in which I might do so.

I do not wish to boast and at the risk of appearing arrogant, this is a very thorough and well-researched study that I am very pleased with and have received accolades and compliments from Biblical Scholars that I admire. This should be public information and available for discussion and/or debate.

If nothing else, you and you alone have my publicly stated permission for Selwyn to provide you with my personal email address. I would dearly love to correspond to you directly on a host of issues and I look forward to our eternal friendship.

May our Almighty Heavenly Father bless you and yours with abundance.

Your eternal friend,

Philip