Talk:Turning the other cheek

Gandhi
A new contribution adds: "Others counter this teaching can serve justice when used as the philosophy behind passive resistance as practiced by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King which the practitioner of this tactic turns other cheek in an effort to turn the aggressors' violence against them."


 * That's just not true. Gandhi 'never' advocated non-violence, despite his false claims to the contrary. Any reading of his full writings reveals that he publicly and repeatedly advocated the use of violence, which he knew would include killings, to advance his cause. He deliberately set up resistance which would provoke and cause beatings and killings, and he stated that hoped that the one-sided attacks of the British against the Indians would cause a lot of public outcry and sympathy. That's not non-violence; that a cynical manipulation of the stupid masses to use beatings and deaths to further one's political goals. (Goals that, as we now know, led to a massive war.) As for King, he publicly stated that he was not a pacifist, and that black people had the right to use force to defend themselves if they were attacked. Many Christians may have later come to interpret these men as following "turn the other cheek", but neither did so in practice. RK 01:26, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not following your statements. It sounds like you are saying that Gandhi advised his followers to perform non-violent actions in such a context as to lead to them experiencing violence, with the purpose of the violence being publicized. Are you saying that (if I even have the first part correct) by advocating non-violence which was likely or certain to lead to violence, you therefore claim he did not advocate non-violence, but rather violence ? I can't quite follow this. If he is urging the soldiers to shoot, then he is advocating violence. If he is urging the victims to be shot, then he is advocating non-violence. No ? -- ll


 * You understand me correctly. He was urging Indians to piss off the British, in the hope that the British would beat and kill many Indians. Gandhi then used this to promote his political agenda. This is the creation of violence for political purposes. Gandhi understood the psychology of the European and American public; causing the killing of his own followers made many people more sympathetic to the Indian cause. Still some people (like me) are very uncomfortable with this. There is a reason that Gandhi has many published critics; this is one of them. RK

Ok, but, isn't this the classic method of non-violent change ? Perform non-violence in such a way as to make public the violence against you ? That is to say, even if person X advocates going out and laying down in front of bulldozers, I don't think we can fairly say that person X advocates crushing people with bulldozers.

This contribution "The Other Cheek " here says that the right example of 'the other cheek' would be the Dandi March (or the Salt Satyagraha). Violence or Non-Violence by the other party is not in your control, but you surely can organize a defiance to show your point of view not with an itent of taking advantage of the law but breaking it to a minimal extent that a note can be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.124.73 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If a person says "Go out and incite British troops to mass murder Indians", and they do this repeatedly, and then some people do get killed by British troops, then yes, it is fair to say that the original person is guilty of inciting violence. I don't know how to make this any clearer.  Repeating the word "peace" one thousands times in a row doesn't make one peaceful, especially when one is promoting violence, and this promotion actually results in massive casulties.  Unless you have some different definition of the word "peace".... RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Especially if person X's major agenda is to stop the crushing of people with bulldozers, and he is advocating we lay in front of them so that we'll get crushed and the world will see how awful it is (b/c person X is going to make sure reporters are on hand), we can hardly blame the crushing of people on X; X is quite on the other side of the battle between crushers and crushees. I mean, person X isn't being terribly sneaky about it, I think, because really, this is the classic political way to use non-violence against the violent. It sounds to me like you want to charge X with the advocacy of violence. But in the argument, over whether it is good or evil to crush people with bulldozers, in my scenario, X seems squarely on the side of crushing people is evil. -ll


 * I don't know how to make this any clearer. Gandhi did promote violence, and he admitted it.  He admitted that he hoped to provoke British troops to hurt and kill many Indians, in order to garner public sympathy.  One can argue whether this was good or bad, wise or unwise, but to argue against the basic facts is bizarre. RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That was far too wordy, and not on the point exactly. My point (or most hope of one, I think) is that if I walk into a Nazi concentration camp, knowing full well that I will be vivisected, it is not morally just to condemn me for the practice of vivisection; the blame for doing the vivisection is not at all upon my shoulders; it remains entirely upon the shoulders of the vivisectionist. If I advise others to march to the doors with protest signs, probably to vivisectional doom, the responsibility for the vivisection still does not devolve upon me; that is too much like blaming the victim. It is like saying to the mayor, I have kidnapped your people, you must pay up or it will be your fault that I shoot the people. That, to me, is a deep misunderstanding of responsibility. Even if the Mayor knows that by not paying up, it will certainly lead to me shooting the hostage, yet still, he does not receive some of my blame for the shooting; I (as the kidnapper) still am the one who chooses to shoot, and the blame remains with me entirely. At least, so I would argue. {I've made a mess shifting around thru different examples; I hope you can follow what I'm trying to say.} -- ll


 * I think your analogy is too far off base to be useful here. Your comparison is not a good analogue. RK

Saying Gandhi didn't advocate "nonviolence" limits the definition of nonviolence. Nonviolence has many facets, but I think a core function of nonviolence deals with dignity. Gandhi admired the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna spends considerable time teaching Arjuna that he must go into war and kill his relatives. The message is non-action is the worst possible answer - far worse than violence. I think often people confuse nonviolence with non-action and they are profoundly different. Violence is closer to nonviolence than nonviolence is to non-action. A famous passage from Gandhi has someone writing him, "A bully in my town slapped me and I was embarrassed, What should I have done?" Gandhi responded "You should have slapped him back, but the real question is why did you let yourself feel embarrassed?" --ElgertS 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Gandhi should have used pistols to shoot back at British rather than use Satyagraha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.0.156 (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

An article here "The Other Cheek? Some Cheek this!" takes the example of Dandi March (Salt Satyagraha) to be the right example for this quotation. It mentions that showing the other cheek tantamounts to defiance and taking loss rather than causing loss. Non Violence is about not causing loss by force. Loss by willingness is something else. The article says - Just walking up to the break the unfair law, not to take advantage of the law but only as a form of protest was a unique idea and the courage of people engaged in it was exemplary. It does not take courage to be a King and engage your army with the Goliath. It takes courage to be a subject and take up the issue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.124.73 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Defenders of the literal interpretation
Some have defended against this criticism by emphasizing pacifisim, arguing that this teaching can serve justice when used as the philosophy behind passive resistance as practiced by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., in which the practitioner of this tactic turns the other cheek in an effort to turn the aggressors' violence against himself.


 * This is just not true. King never preached "turn the other cheek", and he stated that Negros (now called African-Americans) have the right to use physical force to defend their lives. This was a point he stressed after his famous meeting with Malcom X.  And while I am not a fan of the early or mid-life Malcom X, he was absolutely correct to say that Negros must not lie down and allow white racists to beat them and murder them.  Martin Luther King, Jr., did not take the murder of anyone lightly.  As for Gandhi, he publicly incited the mass murder of Indians in order to arouse public sympathy around the world.  This is not "turning the other cheek".  Only Gandhi's most syncophantic apologists can see promoting mass-beatings and mass-killings as "turning the other cheek." RK 22:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that under Roman law it was illegal to strike a servent more than once. Is this true, and does it have anything to do with the origins of the expression?--71.141.109.130 23:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

RK., may I ask why you feel so strongly against Gandhi? Please provide rebuttals to II's cogent reasoning and illustrative examples to your message above, or no one is going to take you seriously. 68.40.50.73 03:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with Gandhi's pro-violent statements, or his demands that all of Europe's Jews kill themselves in order to shame the Nazis? I am basing my criticism of him on his actual statements, and not on the silly movie which whitewashed his entire life. RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi did get his passive resistance philosophy from this. Leo Tolstoy derived his pacifist philosophy from the Sermon on the Mount and Gandhi was influenced heavily by Tolstoy on the subject.TheTruth12 03:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi was a prolific writer and presented a complex message that can easily be taken in ways that might seem problematic. The toolset he puts forward operates in different ways depending on the situation, the time available, the players involved. Most of his work is ignored, because its not controversial or particular exciting, as it spends enormous amounts of time and energy promoting community and self reliance. You object to his illustrative words on how to deal with the persecution of the Jews under the Nazis. Who are the players? The Jews who lack the capacity to organize and defend themselves in an effective manner and the Nazis who harbor nothing but contempt for the Jews. The Nazis' tactic was to systematically dehumanize the Jews and to scapegoat them for all the troubles that befall the German people. Gandhi's position was an extreme portrait to illustrate you can't allow them to dehumanize you. Once you are no longer human to them, they cannot relate to you and cannot empathize your plight. He wasn't presenting options that would make this somewhat better, you had to solve the problem completely with whatever power you had at your disposal. Many in Germany knew what was happening to the Jews, not in detail, but the persecution was open and constant, and their decision to do nothing is far worse in my mind. Following the war, the effect of the holocaust was to make Jewish racism no longer acceptable in U.S. public dialog at all levels. Prior to the war, this was quite common, such as Father Coughlin's extremely popular radio program. Recall Henry Ford's anti-Jew position as well or that of Charles Lindberg. After the holocaust this was no longer possible and this altered mood was a major motivator for the Civil Rights movement to accelerate the Gandhi's tactics to take advantage of the new atmosphere. It also had a positive impact on the Zionist movement. Gandhi's point, I believe, was the Jews could not effectively stage a military response to the Nazis, but they couldn't just let themselves be systematically slaughtered like sheep and silently be culled from future existence. The dignity of who you are extends beyond yourself. This debate is far more expansive. What about Secretary of State Albright, whose family converted to Christianity to save themselves. Not judging their decision, but the question is powerful - is it right to sacrifice your family's cultural history in order to blend in with the dominant culture and avoid persecution? Historically this is a major tactic of conquering powers: capture, enslave, intermarry and eventually snuffing out the culture of the people they occupy. Witness Sudan today. Remember there were twelve tribes of Hebrews and in the end only Judah retained its cultural identity into and beyond occupation. --ElgertS 17:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another interpretation.
There is another interpretation of this passage. The pharisees and religious leaders of the day had twisted the old testament passage instructing the magistrate (judge) to take "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as court-administered punishment, into justifications for personal revenge. Jesus was countering the misconception of the law. Also, to "strike the cheek" meant to severely insult someone - not to physically hit them. Jesus was urging his followers to ignore insults and not start fights.


 * Could you please provide a source? Which group has this interpretation? RK


 * The underlying greek means an open handed strike or slap. This is an insult even to this day in the mid-east. Jesus was talking about vengence and that is only for the LORD to hand out. The pharisees et al. were advocating making vengence a personal issue with "an eye for an eye" clearly against what God had told them in the OT writings. It was not supporting pacifism in any measure except when withstanding an insult. There are numerous OT and NT passages that support that a Christian or Jew can certainly practive defense of self and of family. Only taken OUT of context can you get pacifism.

If Jesus was really commanding his followers to submit to crime, why did he command them to take a short sword with them? He knew they were packing heat, and did not discourage it. For a Christian who believes the Bible to be infallible, Christ could not have commanded his followers to take a sword with them for protection, and then turn around and tell them to let a common criminal beat them to death for a few bucks. In the old testament self-defense, even resulting in the death of an attacker, was justified. When Peter struck the high priest's servant with a sword in defense of Jesus, Jesus did not command Peter not to resist an evil person, but told him that it was his "cup" to die that way, and that he could have called 10,000 angels to his defense.

I think this interpretation merits at least a mention, so I'm going to add it as an alternative mention. If everyone comes to a concensus against it, I'm sure you will have no trouble removing it.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said "do not resist the evildoer?" just curious. TheTruth12 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Jesus wanted people to submit to crime and his words are quite often bold and provocative. In the mention of the swords, he clearly states they don't each need one, just a few was sufficient. What does this mean is a very interesting question. If they all are packing heat, they are ready for armed conflict should it take place even against a group of soldiers. If they just have a few, it becomes less clear. You begin to wonder if the swords are meant to be used at all, or perhaps are there for another reason. Surely bandits are less likely to rob them if they see a sword or two in the group. I don't see Jesus as someone who would ever back down in a situation, but he also clearly shows his preference (very possibly exclusively) to not using force to resolve conflicts. --ElgertS 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And an interpretation as a challenge to the striker.
Walter Wink, of Spirituality & Health, has it right I think.

Here is my analysis, written before reading his.

An alternate interpretation of the scripture.

Background:

At this time, a thief would have a hand chopped off. People ate from a common plate of food in the middle of the table. One used one hand to wipe after defecating and the OTHER hand to take food from the common plate. Thus a man with one hand was not welcome to eat with others. Usually, the eating hand was the right hand.

Thus if one were struck on the right cheek by the back of someone's right hand, it was an insult and a provocation.

What happens if one turns the OTHER cheek, presumably to be struck with the OTHER hand?

I believe if you were struck AGAIN with the OTHER hand, it would be a grievous insult and a major provocation.

This leads me to conclude that the gesture of turning the other cheek is a challenge to the striker. It says, "Look you jerk, you hit me. I'm raising the stakes. If you hit me again with the OTHER hand, you will demonstrate that you are a major jerk, unworthy of any admiration or status."

This is thus, a non-violent act intended to SHAME the other person, perhaps even into backing down and apologizing. It is good social policy since it leaves everyone involved with their teeth and eyes intact.

Does that make sense to you?

Similarly, the act of offering your shirt as well as your coat leaves you naked in the street. This was a big deal in those days, and even today. Again it challenges and shames the other person.


 * And it does not promote pacifism nor rule out self-defense.

If you are nonviolent to challenge or shame someone, are you not still nonviolent? TheTruth12 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it must mean more than merely to challenge, because he goes on about giving the coat as well... the true message is, perhaps, that what harm is inflicted upon you in this life will be returned to the inflicter in the next!! Pacific PanDeist 07:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"If you are nonviolent to challenge or shame someone, are you not still nonviolent?" My answer is yes, but not to shame them rather to make their harmful actions clear to them and convince them to stop. You want to engage their conscience to a harm they are conducting that they have convinced themselves is allowed. Nonviolence places a higher value on personal dignity that almost anything else. You must defend your dignity and you must maintain and defend the dignity of others, even your opponent. --ElgertS 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

historical origins
i think that unless citations are added, this section should be removed. Where is this coming from? what evidence do we have that Jews before Jesus taught to turn the other cheek, and what book says that Jesus didn't originally come up with it?TheTruth12 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"It is commonly assumed that this teaching originated with Jesus, but some hold that it is better conceived of as an exaggerated extrapolation of previous Jewish ethical teachings in the Hebrew Bible." It doesn't say anything like this in the Hebrew Bible. Not even close. This sentence is bull. TheTruth12 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"It is also thought to be possible that Jesus was influenced by the teachings of the Pharisee Hillel the Elder who is famously quoted as describing the Golden Rule to be an effective summation of the Torah; a description quite similar to Jesus' words in Matthew 7:12, though stated in the negative ("do not do unto others what you would not want done to you") rather than the affirmative ("do unto others as you would have others do unto to you")." This paragraph has nothing to do with "turn the other cheek." it doesnt belong in this article.TheTruth12 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

literal interpretation
Here is my opinion - I think it is odd that people can read "do not resist evil" and think that it means something other than not resisting evil. And even go on to say that interpreting it to mean what it clearly says plain as day in blunt language is taking it out of context. People go to great lengths to pretend that it means something other than the obvious interpretation.TheTruth12 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation.
It means you have to be a vesel for the wrath of others because that's a kind of good. If you are stong and their anger is absorbed by you then you have done good to this world.

Besides, do you really think someone that is supposed to be KILLED because people HATE HIM would have a different philosophy of life?

Therefore, it's "literal" in the way of helping others calm down and at the same time it's the very thing that explains in a way - or another way - why he gave his life.

This is interesting and rather close to the nonviolent perspective, which intends to take negative energy (anger, rage) both from yourself and your opposition and channel it in a positive manner to beneficially impact all parties involved. Another goal of nonviolence is to provoke violent reactions out into the open where people can see "institutionalized" violence for what it is rather than accepting it. --ElgertS 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical origins section - total nonsense
I am removing "It is commonly assumed that this teaching originated with Jesus, but some hold that it is better conceived of as an exaggerated extrapolation of previous Jewish ethical teachings in the Hebrew Bible." because, first of all, wherever it originated, Jesus is the one who said it and made it famous. 2nd of all, it is not an exaggeration of the Hebrew Bible, because "eye for an eye" is almost the complete opposite of nonviolence. It would make just as much sense to say genocide is an exaggeration of the Hebrew Bible. As for this part: "It is also thought to be possible that Jesus was influenced by the teachings of the Pharisee Hillel the Elder who is famously quoted as describing the Golden Rule to be an effective summation of the Torah; a description quite similar to Jesus' words in Matthew 7:12, though stated in the negative ("do not do unto others what you would not want done to you") rather than the affirmative ("do unto others as you would have others do unto to you")." it has absolutely nothing to do with turn the other cheek.

I do not know the motive of the person who inserted this section twice, but it is clearly something other than improving the article, because he writes about Matthew 7:12 when the article is about Matthew 5:39. So please do not insert this section again, as it contains false and/or irrelevant information that detracts from the article. 209.23.253.242 07:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey are you of those "NT good, OT bad" persons? :) It is true that OT has violence not compatible with Christianity (since the latter is an evolution and perfection to the other), however OT encourages meekness, goodness, patience and humbleness. It doesn't promote violence. Don't forget that Torah was composed also by persons who misinterpreted the prophets, and that's about who Jesus spoke against Pictureuploader 09:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

yes i am one of those people :) actually i am Gospel good, and nothing else. you are right that the OT encourages all those virtues. but the OT considers war good in some cases, and Jesus considers violence bad in all cases. somehow, most Christians miss this extremely important point of his teachings. and if the NT is an "evolution and perfection" of the OT, then studying the OT for ethics can only hinder you, b/c it will teach you something less evolved and imperfect, and distract you from studying the full goodness.

but aside from that personal note, what it says under historical origins is false and irrelevant. "It is commonly assumed that this teaching originated with Jesus, but" There is the first mistake. It DID originate with Jesus, b/c he is the one who said "Turn the other cheek." If it was built on Jewish teachings, JESUS is the one who built on them. So the teaching originated with Jesus.

Secondly, I think that it is very debateable whether he got it from the OT. He said "Turn the other cheek" in direct opposition to "eye for an eye," and so it seems like he is rejecting the Hebrew Bible as much or more than he is building on it.

Thirdly, yes, Hillel and Jesus both said the Golden Rule, but this article is not about the golden rule - it is about "Turn the other cheek," which Hillel could not have influenced. In fact, Hillel would probably think "Turn the other cheek" was terrible, b/c it abrogates part of the Hebrew Law which he believed in strict literal observance of. And, like i keep saying, Matt 7:12 is irrelevant to this article.

I deleted the section and was warned that it was vandalism (apparently deleting false and irrelevant material is vandalism) and so i revised it a different way. 209.23.253.242 07:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While I find it compelling to state that Hillel influenced Jesus, I do not know of an example of Hillel stating the Golden Rule. If anyone has an example of someone stating the Golden Rule prior to Jesus I would be extremely interested in seeing the evidence. Hillel puts forward the Silver Rule, which is found in the OT and in many other historical texts of various religions. The Golden Rule is what changes this from a directive of non-action (Silver Rule) to a directive of correct-action (Golden Rule). The Silver Rule might imply correct-action, but it does not demand it. --ElgertS 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear,the title of this section, just super.
 * Man A: k, just made a bunch of stuff up, I think it's hanging together...
 * Man B: hmmm, lemme see, you know I think I can rationalise a lot of this, find the origins of some of this stuff you've got here and make it generally more comprehensible and less simplistic and less geared towards children....
 * Man A: Hey, you can't do that, you're just making stuff up!!
 * Man B: yeah (laughs nervously) but you just made it up in the first pla... oh... oh well nm. Listen I have to go.  Yeah I think it'll hang together... like you said.  Looks GREAT.  Well good luck.... Bye!" Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Page title
"Turn the other cheek" is a verb phrase. I've moved this page to "Turning the other cheek" which is a noun phrase, as per WP:VERB. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe that this moron actually just PARAPHRASED a direct quotation attributed to Jesus Christ (as rendered by the Authorized King James English translation of the Bible) so that it would conform to a Wikipedia editing guideline. Wow. Mardiste (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian pacifism
An article has been started called Christian pacifism and a new category Category:Christian pacifists. Editor inputs are welcome. nirvana2013 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture
I think there should be a section in the article about references to "turning the other cheek" in popular culture (e.g. the song Where Is the Love? by the black eyed peas) I don't know any other references to it but I'm sure there are others. --George 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried adding it? I agree with you. ElgertS (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Something missing
Shouldn't there be a section in the article about how this philosophy was not in any way influenced by any part of the zeitgeist of the period, for example other philosophical thought, nor could it possibly have been a philosophical expression of a political reality in the influence of Rome imposing 'peace' whether it was desired or not, and that anyone who suggests such things is 'not mainstream', a 'tiny minority', 'discredited' and so forth. I just feel that's lacking from the article at the moment. Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear you flesh your stance out here further. Many people view this philosophy is a radicalization of Hillel the Elder or a major reworking of the message of John the Baptizer. ElgertS (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What is really literal
"Turn the other cheek" in a very literal sense could read that if someone slaps you or insults you or hits you, you don't respond to them emotionally out of anger and retaliate. Depending on your interpretation, either challenge them to harm you again, or shrug it off. Even taking it in this literal sense, it isn't necessary an argument against using force. Its an argument about not responding to force emotionally.

It makes equal sense to believe Christ would expect people to protect the weak; and equally that Caesar would rightfully be able to carry out his duties to enforce law.

"Turn the other cheek", I don't believe even in the literal sense, is a statement by Christ that if someone threatens to kill a child, you don't do whats necessary to protect the child.

I know a lot of people believe the interpretation that I just gave you. What I'm questioning though is why is this not, by the authors of this article, considered a 'literal' interpretation. Why does a literal interpretation have to equate to pacifism?

I don't see why it should.


 * I would ask what is pacifism really? I find the word vague and not useful to me as it has been often used in contradictory manners. For me the question is the difference between the two well defined and opposing concepts of nonresistance and nonviolence. At points in this pages history the literal section was titled "Nonresistance" and the historical section "Nonviolence". I still feel that is more clear as its the question of whether, as you say, you do nothing about it or you definitely will do something, but that will not involve the use of violence on your part. ElgertS (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way, I don't think lack of violence is a more literal interpretation, than an interpretation that would allow violence. The message read literally tells you not to retaliate, but the statement has a specific point to it--about how you react to an attack. That doesn't necessarily prohibit you from taking whatever action is just, in the normal course of things, even if that action is violent. I believe it correlates very nicely with the fact that 'wrath' is a sin in Christianity. Even though Christians believe that acting out of wrath is a sin, that doesn't mean Christians think any use of violent force is sinful; one is never regarded as having sinned when one acts in self-defense or protects another's life. That is simply acting justly. The point, to Christians, is to be merciful and forgiving. To not have yourself feel controlled by hatred, but instead to challenge hatred. And I think that's a message in tune with Christ's teachings also, to be merciful and forgiving. This position of the Church, I think, grew directly from those who spread Christianity. Despite all the martyrs, who tried themselves to act like Christ, I don't think there was a time when Christians believed others acted wrongly when force was used in a just way. Nor do I think Christ meant to condemn anyone, himself, who acted in a just way, when he said 'turn the other cheek'


 * Nonresistance means not reacting at all not just lack of violence. Nonviolence is a flawed phrase for what it means. In fact, nonviolence doesn't exclude violence - it prohibits impassioned revenge. Nonviolent action can involved killing someone for that matter and still be nonviolence, as seen in the Madman with a Sword example. You take no joy for the result of your actions and your actions work towards the maximum good including for your adversary. --ElgertS (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for the figurative interpretation
"At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

Where's the evidence for this? There should be at least some sort of scholarly source. As of now, there's too many claims in this paragraph about 1st century anthropology and not enough anthropological evidence to back it up. 124.168.169.169 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference added. --ElgertS (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please someone hurry to re-write/erase this.
I don't know where to begin to explain why.

"Also, When Jesus said turn the other cheek he was saying, when someone yells at you dont react harshly. Just listen to their plight. Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. Jesus was not rejecting this. He understood it. The Jews thought God meant what someone does to you do back to them. But it means whatever you do to someone God will do to you. Its Karma. You reap what you sow. Do unto others what what you would have them do to you. Because what you do to others will come back on you good and bad." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.230.128 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite required
I am somewhat surprised by this entire article and the lack of scholarship in it. The article consists mainly of personal interpretation and speculation. The whole notion of karma (Buddhist) is just thrown in, somewhat arbitrarily, and "turning the other cheek" is linked in a rather convoluted way to Gandhi's philosphy of Satyagraha (which directly inspired strategies/tactics of both Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela/Walter Sisulu's ANC Youth League) but which is only tangentially linked to this topic. The bulk of the article (which currently has the tone of "some think this" and "some think that") should really identify the main scholarly interpretations and provide references. Without this, everything else is "noise". 89.243.70.222 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it does, are you willing to coordinate on such an effort? Not sure about your stand on the relationship of these movements being less than direct. First, karma far predates Buddhism by a long shot as does Buddhism predate the first century. Additionally Gandhi kept an image of Jesus hanging directly in front of him in his office due to the Sermon on the Mount's influence on his beliefs. The rest of the line you mention follow directly from there with Martin Luther King keeping a painting and statue of Gandhi in his home. Wikipedia has matured greatly in the last few years as to how articles are to be formatted and properly referenced. Undoubtedly the hand of a talented individual to aid in such an effort would be greatly appreciated. ElgertS (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Figurative?
"Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:" This argument seems really absurd to me. I'm certain it contradicts existing Jewish law. Can we have a source on this? In fact, all of the arguments in the "figurative" section are really shoddy. Even in this spin, Jesus is advocating a form of passive resistance (getting "oppressors" into trouble by forcing them to break obscure Roman laws) as opposed to direct violent confrontation (e.g. Zealots). I agree with ElgertS about the lack of scholarship. 71.198.211.141 (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about contradicting existing Jewish law, but this may need clarification to the acceptance of nudity being tied to or attributed to poverty which would have an affect how how the debtor is viewed. As for the arguments being really shoddy, these arguments stem directly from scholarship (Jesus Seminar) Christian Nonviolence. While open to criticism, I don't think they are shoddy. I don't think anyone would put Jesus in with the Zealots, who are probably the only First Century Jewish group not mentioned by him. --ElgertS (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Low Academic Quality
I just clicked on this from a link at JuanCole.com, and wanted to comment. We have to distinguish between (a) scholarly interpretations of what Jesus, and/or the author(s) of the biblical verses, meant and (b) Christian theological interpretations. On (a), the article cites a handful of sources (without giving page numbers!) which may or may not represent current scholarly opinion. Biblical scholarship is full of speculative theories which are promoted by one person. How can we know whether these interpretations have gained wide acceptance? Also, since the citations are so vague (again, no page numbers are given), I have no great confidence that these theories are actually supported by the sources given (one of which apparently starts from the Bar Kokhba revolt). On (b), the article makes some attempt to cover Christian pacifism, but neglects more mainstream views (see Just War). --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.180.224 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Literal? Straighforward?
This article doesn't even use the term, "literal" literally. I'm not a scholar but I sure know that the extremely short bit under that heading is just one obscure interpretation. Also really unclear what you mean by "straightforward." If you're not going to do it right, just don't do it, man. Genepoz (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Including discussing of related verses?
I improved the "Interpretations" headings and the material under them, so this article is at least somewhat more accurate now. But I have a question: should Turning the other cheek continue to cover the verses about handing over your clock and going two miles, or should it be trimmed down to just discussing the actual subject of the article? I decided to leave the extra material in because the additional verses are context for the idea of turning the other cheek, and because these verses do get discussed together on blogs, etc., but I'd be interested in other opinions. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not being emotionally affected by negative feedback is annoying and psychopathic
Not being emotionally affected by negative feedback(like a slap to the face) is annoying and psychopathic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.146.20 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Section 2.4
Maybe I'm wrong, but this section of the article is very opinionated, uses unprofessional writing voice, and lacks citations. (I have a lot of respect for the Wikipedia community, but I'm new to it, so feel free to correct or advise.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.65.170 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Interpretations
Shouldn't there be more sources here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.2.98 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The very first paragraph on this page has no citations at all
I am not a Christian so this would be better suited to someone who is more familiar with the new testament Gospels. I think there should be at the very least about 2 citations in the first paragraph. One citation should indicate the source of the quote/ saying/ topic of the page. The other should indicate a good source that interprets the meaning.

I am not in dispute with either, by the way. I simply think it should meet with Wikipedia principles.--Hypernator (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Lamentations
First biblical source of turning the cheek is in lamentations, 3:30 -

"He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him"

This should be added to the article under "Scriptural references" ShaiGoldman18 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)