"If someone hits you on one cheek turn to him the other"

[TryingToLive]

Whats exactly does this mean, does it mean if we are hit that we have to be loving enough to take it or is it just a saying, and if so how does it relate to the rest of the verses it goes along with. Someone please explain this to me.

 

[Lady Di-USA]

The gesture of one tapping or hitting anothers cheek in the time of Jesus was as a repremand and was often a shame to the one who received it; however, to turn your other cheek and for that person to perform the act again towards you was counted to his shame. Should you study ancient Hebrew customs you would find that was a custom of the times. I hope that answers your question.

Take care and God bless.

 

[Faith In God]

umm, sums up right before the turning cheek: "Do not resist an evil person."

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

It's mainly saying don't repay evil w/ evil and don't retaliate.

 

[TwinCrier]

I agree, it simply means not to retailiate for minor offenses. Now, it doesn't say that it they raise their hand again that you can't duck...

 

[Tractor1]

Whats exactly does this mean, does it mean if we are hit that we have to be loving enough to take it or is it just a saying, and if so how does it relate to the rest of the verses it goes along with. Someone please explain this to me.

May I give an alternative exposition?

In this portion of Scripture (Matt. 5:17-48) Christ is interpreting the Law in its relation to the promised earthly kingdom. The teachings of the kingdom can't be applied to men in this age since they anticipate the restoration of Israel, the binding of Satan, a purified earth, and the personal reign of the King, Christ Jesus. It will be time for the universal reign of righteousness and peace in the world, and whereas one nation was in view when the Mosaic Law was in force, the whole social order will be in view when the kingdom is set up in the earth. The personal obligation of those ruled over will be the observance of Law which will be similar to that of Moses, only intensified, as Christ transfers the obligation from the outward act to the attitude of the heart. In the kingdom men must agree with their adversary quickly unless they be cast into prison where no mercy is available (Matt. 5:25-26). Where there's an exact equity in the Law of Moses ( Matt. 5:38) a new high standard of submission is substituted in the kingdom (Matt. 5:39). This is the type of relationship that will be expected between men during the time Satan is bound and Christ is reigning. If not the extreme legal penalty for doing wrong will be imposed (Matt. 5:20-22, 29-30).

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Anti-Fear]

I am not sure what that means exactly, but what is clearly visible from that passage is that no retaliation should be bigger than the offense.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I have heard it said that Jesus was promoting a form of non-violent protest here. It seems that it was an insult to hit someone with the back of the hand as it suggested the person was beneath you socially, so by turning the other cheek you challenged them to hit you again, a challenge they were unlikely to refuse, and thereby were forced to hit you with the front of the hand as they would a social equal.

This ties in with carrying a burden for an extra mile. A Roman soldier was legally entitled to require a civilian to carry his pack for one mile but no more than one mile and the civilian could not refuse. Obviously this practice was resented. Jesus suggested you protest by carrying the pack another mile, which would cause the soldier to break the rules and be liable to severe army discipline.

Giving your tunic (undergarment) to someone who demanded your cloak of you in a court of law would leave you standing naked before everyone and the shame would be on the person who demanded your cloak. Poor people would have slept in their cloaks and not had blankets, so it was all they had to keep them warm. It was a way the powerless could protest at injustice.

Karin

 

[Faith In God]

I am not sure what that means exactly, but what is clearly visible from that passage is that no retaliation should be bigger than the offense.

no retaliation period. retaliation of equal measure would be the eye for eye principle, and Jesus said You have heard eye for eye, but, saying that this is not what you are to do. I like treasure's response.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I am not sure what that means exactly, but what is clearly visible from that passage is that no retaliation should be bigger than the offense.

= do unto others...???

= an eye for an eye...???

 

[TwinCrier]

= do unto others...???

= an eye for an eye...???

The 'eye for an eye" verse is refers to the justice system. That's why verse forty directly mentions being sued. You shouldn't retaliate, either legally or morally, where you don't have authority to do so. For example, you don't send you neighbor to their room because they didn't eat all their vegatables.

 

[herev]

I agree, it simply means not to retailiate for minor offenses. Now, it doesn't say that it they raise their hand again that you can't duck...

and sooner or later, you run out of cheeks (after 2 or 4 hits)--I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[Pilgrim 33]

and sooner or later, you run out of cheeks (after 2 or 4 hits)--I agree wholeheartedly!

Jesus didn't bring a message of Ghandi-ite passivity

besides, if punches are needed it's time for guns.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Jesus didn't bring a message of Ghandi-ite passivity

On the contrary, that's just what he did do, and those who've tried it have shown it is more powerful than guns.

Karin

 

[Faith In God]

Jesus didn't bring a message of Ghandi-ite passivity

besides, if punches are needed it's time for guns.

punches are never needed. Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the high priest's servant's ear in self defence.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

punches are never needed. Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the high priest's servant's ear in self defence.

Very, true.

Karin

 

[Pilgrim 33]

punches are never needed.

Agreed, at least, they're not supposed to be, assuming of course, that muscle on top of the shoulders is properly exercised.

Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the high priest's servant's ear in self defence.

That was not self-defense. That was merely improper muscle exercise.

 

[Faith In God]

Agreed, at least, they're not supposed to be, assuming of course, that muscle on top of the shoulders is properly exercised.


That was not self-defense. That was merely improper muscle exercise.

got you, didn't I?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

On the contrary, that's just what he did do, and those who've tried it have shown it is more powerful than guns.

Karin

Jesus advocated neither one way or the other on political Ghandi-ite passivity; about the only thing He had to say on politics was wrapped up in His discourse where He spoke of why we pay taxes.

 

[Faith In God]

umm, sums up right before the turning cheek: "Do not resist an evil person."

read the verse.