Turning the Other Cheek Takes Great Courage

a reply to: Tartuffe

The other thing to understand about Christ's teachings is that He was here to teach us to walk in accordance with God's wishes. God wants us to walk in His way, not in the ways of the world. This world is temporary and the world of the spirit, God's world, is eternal.

God doesn't really want us doing violence to one another. Christ made that plain.

So to earn the rewards of the spirit you make sacrifices, even if it means you endure horrific things in the world. But realistically, many will fail. It takes rare courage to subject oneself to suffering and martyrdom without striking back.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tartuffe

The other thing to understand about Christ's teachings is that He was here to teach us to walk in accordance with God's wishes. God wants us to walk in His way, not in the ways of the world. This world is temporary and the world of the spirit, God's world, is eternal.

God doesn't really want us doing violence to one another. Christ made that plain.

So to earn the rewards of the spirit you make sacrifices, even if it means you endure horrific things in the world. But realistically, many will fail. It takes rare courage to subject oneself to suffering and martyrdom without striking back.

That is a fair point. There is a noticeable amount of courage in having that kind of faith in the words of a man, let alone a man from a book. For me, however, it lacks any coherent argument. But I guess faith is the point, after all.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Tartuffe

I don't see the concept of "turning one's cheek" as one of passivity, as it requires the act of turning away from violence and toward a different potential solution by forcing the opponent's hand (lower it or strike again).

Davis put himself in tremendously vulnerable position and forced his opponents to examine and justify (and ultimately reject) their own actions. I suppose this is where I see his case as related to the subject.

I understand the modern concept of turn the other cheek, but we should remember that it was always just an example in support of a greater principle, namely, "do not resist an evil person".

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

One could devise many more examples with the same principle. If someone wants your freedom, put yourself in chains. If someone wants take your wife for his own, give them your daughter as well. If someone wants your life, dig your grave for him and lie in it.

This is to give up yourself to exploitation, abuse, slavery, and tyranny.

I'm glad you included the entire context of the subject in mind. You're absolutely correct that context matters but I'm NOT certain the context refutes the modern understanding of the phrase, particularly as the whole passage as an answer to violence. (You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person)

I honestly can't fault a single word I read in the full passage and agree the whole message is best taken in full of course-- when one reads the full Sermon on the Mount one gets the idea that being good in the midst of evil requires extreme measures, which if I'm reading correctly might sometimes take the form of more passive resistence (verse 39), sometimes generosity (verse 40), sometimes service (verse 41) (among other acts generally considered worthy).
It does appear weak to give a person one's coat in response to his suit for your shirt... but have you been to court? Losing one's coat and shirt is typically the least of one's troubles in a court. There is no winning that type of case. Is it possible that heartfelt generosity could embarrass an opponent into sincere repentence? And my faith is that the defendent would find him/herself in possession of a better shirt and coat at some point, but if not, in the very least he/she has not compromised integrity (court canget messy and takes time and energy best spent elsewhere).
I DO think there's a chance of reaching people who aren't unrepentently evil by employing these responses.
Righteous anger might not have accomplished what Daryl Davis's friendship did.

Here's an example of Patton Oswalt responding to an offense with generosity (I understand that there are different levels of evil and that kindness is not always the immediate way to deal with a situation):

www.usmagazine.com...

Beatty was stunned beyond belief, thanking his benefactor for his kind deed. “Patton. You have humbled me to the point where I can barely compose my words,” he tweeted Opens a New Window. on Thursday. “You have caused me to take pause and reflect on how harmful words from my mouth could result in such an outpouring.”

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Tartuffe

I'm very glad you included the entire context of the subject in mind. You're absolutely correct that context matters but I'm NOT certain the context refutes the modern understanding of the phrase, particularly as the whole passage as an answer to violence. (You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person)

I honestly can't fault a single word I read in the full passage and agree the whole message is best taken in full of course, when one reads the full sermon on the mount one gets the idea that being good in the midst of evil requires extreme measures, which if I'm reading correctly might sometimes take the form of passivity (verse 39), sometimes generosity (verse 40), sometimes service (verse 41).
It does appear weak to give a person one's coat in response to his suit for your shirt... but have you been to court? Losing one's coat and shirt is typically the least of one's troubles in a court. There is no winning that type of case. Is it possible that heartfelt generosity could embarrass an opponent into sincere repentence? And my faith is that the defendent would find him/herself in possession of a better shirt and coat at some point as a result.
I DO think there's a chance of reaching people who aren't unrepentently evil by employing these responses.
Here's an example of Patton Oswalt responding to an offense with generosity (I understand that there are different levels of evil and that kindness is not always the immediate way to deal with a situation):

www.usmagazine.com...

Beatty was stunned beyond belief, thanking his benefactor for his kind deed. “Patton. You have humbled me to the point where I can barely compose my words,” he tweeted Opens a New Window. on Thursday. “You have caused me to take pause and reflect on how harmful words from my mouth could result in such an outpouring.”

I understand I'm giving it a fairly literal meaning, and I see no problem with believers using it to support humility and grace.

What I do not like is that the phrase discredits justice, discredits those who stand up for and fight for the innocent. But I suppose the repudiation of pagan heroism is one of the lasting legacies of Christian passivity.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Tartuffe

I'm very glad you included the entire context of the subject in mind. You're absolutely correct that context matters but I'm NOT certain the context refutes the modern understanding of the phrase, particularly as the whole passage as an answer to violence. (You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person)

I honestly can't fault a single word I read in the full passage and agree the whole message is best taken in full of course, when one reads the full sermon on the mount one gets the idea that being good in the midst of evil requires extreme measures, which if I'm reading correctly might sometimes take the form of passivity (verse 39), sometimes generosity (verse 40), sometimes service (verse 41).
It does appear weak to give a person one's coat in response to his suit for your shirt... but have you been to court? Losing one's coat and shirt is typically the least of one's troubles in a court. There is no winning that type of case. Is it possible that heartfelt generosity could embarrass an opponent into sincere repentence? And my faith is that the defendent would find him/herself in possession of a better shirt and coat at some point as a result.
I DO think there's a chance of reaching people who aren't unrepentently evil by employing these responses.
Here's an example of Patton Oswalt responding to an offense with generosity (I understand that there are different levels of evil and that kindness is not always the immediate way to deal with a situation):

www.usmagazine.com...

Beatty was stunned beyond belief, thanking his benefactor for his kind deed. “Patton. You have humbled me to the point where I can barely compose my words,” he tweeted Opens a New Window. on Thursday. “You have caused me to take pause and reflect on how harmful words from my mouth could result in such an outpouring.”

I understand I'm giving it a fairly literal meaning, and I see no problem with believers using it to support humility and grace.

What I do not like is that the phrase discredits justice, discredits those who stand up for and fight for the innocent. But I suppose the repudiation of pagan heroism is one of the lasting legacies of Christian passivity.

I wonder if it's discrediting justice as much as questioning what the end result of justice could look like.

In a just world would every offense be returned with equal measure? Or is there another way to achieve a better result?
(Example-- If you took my eye and I responded in turn, I still am partially sightless. It's a loss no matter how I look at it. However, I lose my eye and my response sparks true remorse on your part, and perhaps even changes the way you interact with the world have I gained something more "right" or "just" than retaliation, or not?)

Sorry for the example lol you can reverse the original offense to make it mine.

a reply to: zosimov

I am a man of peace.
I desire peace,but I know the reality of our world.
I will turn the other cheek once to listen to you,if your first blow was not fatal.
But at the same time If you are threatening to harm me or my family,i will be turning my cheek to get another angle on my strike points upon you.

Pacifism until cornered by a potentially fatal threat,and prior training to deal with that moment,if gods forbid-it happens.


"In the natural world,the cobra wishes to relax in the bushes,under rocks to eat the occasional rat or bird.
But when Giant Two Leg Mofo comes and tries to stomp cobra,
Snake strike back,with lethal force.
But snake wants peace,not war."

-Gautama Buddha

Or something similar said by someone else,mayhap I mix up my quotes but the idea you get.

OP. Doing what you think it means is fine except in life threatening situations. We are all temples of God and are able to do like jesus did to the Pharisees if need be.

a reply to: Tartuffe

My husband also brings up that there is a possible historical context that the modern discussion lacks.

He has heard that in Roman times, it was apparently a thing for the Roman soldiers to go around and slap Jews on the cheek because eye for an eye was a big thing. But if the Jew retaliated, the Roman soldier was wholly justified in killing the Jew outright by law. So some particularly sadistic ones would make a game out of it.

There was apparently a historical context to the rich man with his camel and the needle's eye too that we lack when discussing things today.

a reply to: zosimov
It depends, turning the other cheek is only good for some things, on other things your have just encouraged them to continue doing what there doing because you turned your cheek. May as well have sign on your back that says kick me.

So! I suppose we can go by baseball rules. Three strikes and your out. Though in some cases 3 chances, are 3 chances to many. To make on rule like it encompasses all of live, is just down right silly, and narrow-minded, to turn the cheek or to not turn the cheek? May just belong in a Shakespeare play.

So lets just say...It depends.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Oh a slap can be dangerous. I have seen people die from slaps. Well not slaps, more like a full open hand swing right on the chin. So technically a very hard slap to the chin. At that point its not that much different then a punch.

And not really seen it, but when I turned around from what I was doing, and saw the guy laying on the concrete and everybody standing around a circle, I asked around, WTF happened? I asked the guy that did it, but he was just mumbling, and didnt want to tell me. And well when I pulled one guy out, that saw it and asked him. What he said was "oh man! he was giving *** grief, and, *** slaped him"

To which I responded, WHAT?

Anyways to make a long story short the poor guy ended up being knocked out, and his head bounced off the concrete, by the time the ambulance arrived he was bleeding from his mouth. I thought it would just be concussion, and he would be fine in a few hours, or days since he didnt get up right up to the moment the ambulance arrived.

But next day he died of a brain hemorrhage in the hospital, left his wife and kids behind. The full on slap ko'd him and the fact that his head bounced of the concrete was what lead to the brain hemorrhage. And all over just a misunderstanding on the wrong day, at the wrong time, with the wrong guy, who was himself moody because he did not sleep for for a few days and was stuck at work.

So ya, slaps, can kill and are dangerous.

Case in point, like in these vids, people get moody over the weirdest things. Like that moody wessler on his period or something but the interviewer was pushing it, or that hefty girl in the vids below that slaped the guy who was pulling hair. So ya! Slaps are not just an attack on pride.

There are so many vids out there of people getting slapped and going to sleep or worse, that I would say slaps are not just a kidy pride thing. You can kill a dude with a slap, thats for sure, the human face or chin was just not designed to get hit, and thats more true on some.

The funniest one I seen, was a vid of some party kids, were this one guy without a shirt and likely a few beers, wanted to be macho in front of his buddies, so he asks this girl, tiny thing, to slap him, some sort of dare or showoff. And well...Timber, the dude fell like a sack of potatoes out cold when she slaped him, and not even hard at all. I could not find that vid, but here are some others.
Guy gets slaped

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I think "it depends" is fair.

I have never been slapped. I was witness to my brother receiving an unprompted effete kind of a slap from a drunk Swede.

My brother looked at the guy and said (and I just find this so funny due to the weak nature of the slap)
"Did you just slap me?"
I truly don't even remember the incoherent response but I believe my brother did the right thing here.
Had he returned with an effete slap of his own, or worse, the situation may have ended differently.


Thanks to the excellent discussion, I've been scrutinizing this verse and am fairly certain that this verse represents the most radical response to our more vengeful impulses (not the common response). I really do like it, and find that perpetuating evil (and by evil we could b talking about a range of things here-- let's assume we could start by applying this mentality to the lesser evils we are subject to) is much "easier" to do than transforming it.

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Tartuffe

I'm very glad you included the entire context of the subject in mind. You're absolutely correct that context matters but I'm NOT certain the context refutes the modern understanding of the phrase, particularly as the whole passage as an answer to violence. (You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person)

I honestly can't fault a single word I read in the full passage and agree the whole message is best taken in full of course, when one reads the full sermon on the mount one gets the idea that being good in the midst of evil requires extreme measures, which if I'm reading correctly might sometimes take the form of passivity (verse 39), sometimes generosity (verse 40), sometimes service (verse 41).
It does appear weak to give a person one's coat in response to his suit for your shirt... but have you been to court? Losing one's coat and shirt is typically the least of one's troubles in a court. There is no winning that type of case. Is it possible that heartfelt generosity could embarrass an opponent into sincere repentence? And my faith is that the defendent would find him/herself in possession of a better shirt and coat at some point as a result.
I DO think there's a chance of reaching people who aren't unrepentently evil by employing these responses.
Here's an example of Patton Oswalt responding to an offense with generosity (I understand that there are different levels of evil and that kindness is not always the immediate way to deal with a situation):

www.usmagazine.com...

Beatty was stunned beyond belief, thanking his benefactor for his kind deed. “Patton. You have humbled me to the point where I can barely compose my words,” he tweeted Opens a New Window. on Thursday. “You have caused me to take pause and reflect on how harmful words from my mouth could result in such an outpouring.”

I understand I'm giving it a fairly literal meaning, and I see no problem with believers using it to support humility and grace.

What I do not like is that the phrase discredits justice, discredits those who stand up for and fight for the innocent. But I suppose the repudiation of pagan heroism is one of the lasting legacies of Christian passivity.

I wonder if it's discrediting justice as much as questioning what the end result of justice could look like.

In a just world would every offense be returned with equal measure? Or is there another way to achieve a better result?
(Example-- If you took my eye and I responded in turn, I still am partially sightless. It's a loss no matter how I look at it. However, I lose my eye and my response sparks true remorse on your part, and perhaps even changes the way you interact with the world have I gained something more "right" or "just" than retaliation, or not?)

Sorry for the example lol you can reverse the original offense to make it mine.

That's a very fair point and good example. If we always retaliated we could get stuck in a vicious cycle of violence and revenge.

But what if I felt remorse? What if I realized my evil deed and vowed to make it up to you? What if you forgave me?

I think, then, that you would find plucking out my eye would be unjust.

a reply to: Tartuffe


Very true, my friend, I would not find any pleasure through seeking out retaliation in that case. I was so tired yesterday and don't think I made my point properly but I did mean that the only way I could hope to feel some form of recourse for the damage already done would be through a situation such as you presented by taking a more generous approach, NOT through retaliation.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: zosimov

Peace in the Middle East is not going to happen in our lifetimes!

Sure it will, Allah gave the US nukes to send all of his followers to the promised afterlife. God is great!!!!

a reply to: zosimov
Hmm! The Swedes are not known for there rudeness. But drunks are the same the world over.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Tartuffe


Very true, my friend, I would not find any pleasure through seeking out retaliation in that case. I was so tired yesterday and don't think I made my point properly but I did mean that the only way I could hope to feel some form of recourse for the damage already done would be through a situation such as you presented by taking a more generous approach, NOT through retaliation.

If that’s a point you make when you’re tired I can’t wait to read your thinking when you’re spry. These are very fundamental questions. People like Plato ruminated on Justice. Obviously Jesus did as well. But even tired, what you wrote was very eloquent, not to mention your writing instantly evokes good conversation. Big fan, friend.

a reply to: Tartuffe

Thanks so much for the kind words I enjoyed and benefitted tremendously from this discussion and look forward to watching that documentary you suggested!

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
at the expense of pride.

What an interesting point-- that pride can often play a heavy factor! It's so important to understand this in order to maybe recognize it when it emerges in us.

And that's where hatred comes in in a positive manner. Not all forms of hatred are negative. It depends on what you hate.

The proud person may not recognize that he is proud and may attribute his actions to other causes in order to avoid facing the fact of his pride. Each person should examine himself and his motives thoroughly to determine whether he has this bad trait. Pride should be rooted out of one’s personality for one’s own benefit. More important, it must be done if a person hopes to please God. One must even come to hate it, for God’s Word says: “The fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad. Self-exaltation and pride and the bad way and the perverse mouth I have hated.”​—Pr 8:13.

Hatred for one's own pride gives one a motive for doing something about it. Hatred for what is bad like that, is also a requirement for your love to be without hypocrisy. Psalm 97:10a:

10 O you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad.

Psalm 101:3

3 I will not set anything worthless* [Or “good-for-nothing.”] before my eyes.

I hate the deeds of those who deviate from what is right;

I will have nothing to do with them.* [Or “Their deeds do not cling to me.”]

Romans 12:9

9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is wicked; cling to what is good.

For those brainwashed and indoctrinated with the Star Wars philosophies promoted by Yoda concerning fear and hatred, I recommend not to fall for such simplistic views and mantras or memes of such matters as fear and hatred (talking about the simplistic phrase: 'fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering').

It's a cute phrase, but it's not considering all aspects of these feelings, and it's not wisdom or some brilliant (enlightened) insight.

a reply to: zosimov

Turning the other cheek can be a sign of great courage or a sign of great weakness. It's all dependent on who is slapping whom (metaphorically, of course).

Among fellow, refined men and women, turning the other cheek is certainly courageous and will cause pause among the person who struck first. Among barbarians, turning the other cheek will only get you killed (which makes it cowardice).

a reply to: zosimov

The context IMO is being disciplined, kind, humble, capable and confident respectively.

That order minimizes possible conflicts. Should a conflict arise, I'm not the type to have to prove anything to anyone. I've done it for myself, and it feels real bad even if you know there was no other option. Mainly because it's a form of introspection, you may see things you don't want to. Enough to avoid that again at all costs, including pride.