was it cheeky to "turn the other cheek"? Walter Wink's theology

[Ayatollah So]

Wow. Pay careful attention to the wording, add a little historical context, and throw a whole new light on something we all thought we knew:

"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" (Matt. 5:39b). You are probably imagining a blow with the right fist. But such a blow would fall on the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could be used only for unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus' day, to gesture with the left hand meant exclusion from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you hit the other's right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will know: the only feasible blow is a backhand.

The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place.

Notice Jesus' audience: "If anyone strikes you." These are people used to being thus degraded. He is saying to them, "Refuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek." (Now you really need to physically enact this to see the problem.) By turning the other cheek, the servant makes it impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. And anyway, it's like telling a joke twice; if it didn't work the first time, it simply won't work. The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists, as we know from Jewish sources, and the last thing the master wishes to do is to establish this underling's equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in the relationship. He can have the slave beaten, but he can no longer cow him.

By turning the other cheek, then, the "inferior" is saying: "I'm a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am a child of God. I won't take it anymore."

Wink also offers similar - the best word seems to be subversive - interpretations of "if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well," and "if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile." According to Wink, these are acts of quiet, peaceful defiance. The idea is to fight fire (violence, domination) with water, and so move beyond a domination-based system of social organization.

Discuss.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Interesting.
I already knew some sources identified that Jesus was a violent man. The classic "Turn the other cheek" never fit that description well. It does fit it better this way.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Heard this a long time ago, described as "ethical jiu-jitsu". Here's the interpretation I heard of walking another mile - Roman soldiers, as it was told to me, were allowed to force locals to act as guides for a maximum of one mile, but if they pressed them further, they'd have to answer to their superiors. So if the local headed on, the soldier faced the choice of doing something illegal or doing something ungrateful and embarassing, namely saying "stop helping me".

 

[Rik Meleet]

Just found this on the coat and the cloak.

“If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well.”

The setting is a law court where a creditor is suing a poor man over an unpaid loan. Only the poorest people were treated in such a manner. According to Jewish law a creditor could take a person’s outer robe as collateral, but each night had to return it for the poor man to sleep in. By telling his audience to take off their cloak in addition to their outer robe, if they are taken to court over an unpaid loan, he is instructing them to take off all their clothes.
Ancient Judaism had a strong taboo against nakedness, but the shame of nakedness would have fallen on the person who caused it in Jesus’ example.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I always thought "turning the other cheek" meant that you were being mocked by the person you struck.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

All of this may be true, but the point of the maxim "turn the other cheek" is about letting things go, not specifics about left and right and what not. It's still a viable maxim.

Interesting.
I already knew some sources identified that Jesus was a violent man.

This I want to see.

The classic "Turn the other cheek" never fit that description well. It does fit it better this way.

How so? This is still a nonviolent answer to a problem. He isn't saying "go slit your masters' throats in the night," he's simply advocating defiance. Granted, you sort of force the situation where it might get physical, but again, that's the slapper's fault, not the slappee's (that's fun to type/say ), but that doesn't make the slappee a violent person in the slightest.

 

[Berzerker]

interesting, makes sense

 

[Leonel]

I would have just backhanded the slave in the face and say "I think I prefer your right cheek, thank you!"

 

[Ayatollah So]

All of this may be true, but the point of the maxim "turn the other cheek" is about letting things go, not specifics about left and right and what not.

But if Wink is right, it's not about letting things go. It's about creative nonviolent confrontation.

It's a lot like Gandhi's actions against the British, only, if this version of Jesus were in that situation, he'd probably confront Indian big cheeses as well as their British overlords.

 

[Ramius75]

very interesting... and i tot its the other "cheek".

thanks for sharing. now i know more.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But if Wink is right, it's not about letting things go. It's about creative nonviolent confrontation.

What Jesus' message was, if Wink is right, is about non-violent confrontation. The original message about letting things go is still a valid maxim, it's just not what that phrase means.

 

[zxcvbnm]

Interesting... this shows even better that he was a human just like Gandhi instead of a god...
so my theory of his origin gets even more proof...

 

[Margim]

Interesting... this shows even better that he was a human just like Gandhi instead of a god...
so my theory of his origin gets even more proof...

How is that?

 

[Love]

But if Wink is right, it's not about letting things go. It's about creative nonviolent confrontation.

It's a lot like Gandhi's actions against the British, only, if this version of Jesus were in that situation, he'd probably confront Indian big cheeses as well as their British overlords.

hey i love the british and i'm not indian!

 

[zxcvbnm]

How is that?

Because total tolerance and nonresistance of evil is less plausible for a human being than nonviolent resistance

 

[Ayatollah So]

So ... is it just my imagination, or does this fly in the face of most Christian churches' teachings?

For example: for most of its history, the Catholic church has told people not to rock the boat. Meekly accept their places as serfs, or what have you.

And then there's modern American fundamentalism, with its deep shades of militant patriotism.

What gives?

 

[Masquerouge]

The OP fails at explaining one thing, though.

"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also"

Note the also. It is not "if anyone strikes you, turn the other cheek", which fits indeed well with the explanation, it says "turn the other also", meaning that the right cheek was hit first, then you turn the other to be hit on it also.

 

[holy king]

So ... is it just my imagination, or does this fly in the face of most Christian churches' teachings?

For example: for most of its history, the Catholic church has told people not to rock the boat. Meekly accept their places as serfs, or what have you.

And then there's modern American fundamentalism, with its deep shades of militant patriotism.

What gives?

you think anyone is going to change his mind because of this?

Note the also. It is not "if anyone strikes you, turn the other cheek", which fits indeed well with the explanation, it says "turn the other also", meaning that the right cheek was hit first, then you turn the other to be hit on it also.

if i wanted to discuss the exact literal meaning of phrases from the bible, i'd discuss the original greek version...

 

[Masquerouge]

if i wanted to discuss the exact literal meaning of phrases from the bible, i'd discuss the original greek version...

Just to clarify, are you saying that I should work with the original greek version, or that Walter Wink should?

 

[holy king]

Just to clarify, are you saying that I should work with the original greek version, or that Walter Wink should?

you, i hope he did...