“Turning the other cheek” is a Biblical reference to not responding aggressively to violence. This idea is present in other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. The interpretation of this teaching varies among Christians, with some believing in non-violence and others advocating for self-defense. Some argue that the phrase is metaphorical and means avoiding aggression when possible. Nonviolent resistance, as advocated by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., is seen as a means of turning the other cheek.
Turning the other cheek is a Biblical reference mentioned in the New Testament in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus exhorts his followers: “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also to him.” In Luke’s Speech on the Plain the same phrase is repeated. Turning the other cheek is often interpreted as not responding aggressively or fighting back aggressive attacks; the response to violence is passivity and humility.
Such thinking is not only present in Christianity, and it certainly exists in other religions. The idea of Ahimsa, an important part of some sects of Hinduism and Buddhism that existed for centuries before the advent of Christianity, expresses that acting with violence entails very bad karma. You can find this idea even outside of Christianity in the work and philosophy of people like Mahatma Gandhi.
The biblical interpretation of turning the other cheek varies. Is Christ advising his followers never to act violently, even in self-defense? Some Christian sects, such as the Quakers, fully believe this. There is no act of violence that can be praised. Other modern Christians would seem to act in complete disagreement with this philosophy. For example, advocating for the death penalty would seem to conflict directly with turning the other cheek.
There are multiple interpretations of how it is meant to turn the other cheek and when it is acceptable not to act in accordance with these teachings. Some, for example, believe that violence in self-defense is absolutely moral, especially if you use a small amount of violence to escape someone who would harm you. Hitting someone, but not killing them, can help prevent a person from doing things unfairly. If you knock out someone who’s attacking you, you may be preventing them from killing you, a greater sin than just attacking. Alternatively, running away instead of allowing someone to continue hurting you is considered feasible and imminently reasonable.
Some arguments against this teaching focus on how “turning the other cheek” has been used in the past to sanction the violence of the oppressor. In abusive families, pastors might counsel wives to behave better so they don’t get hit, rather than counseling them to flee a marriage in which the safety of their wife or children was at constant risk. Because more is understood about the nature of spousal abuse, this advice is rarely given in most mainstream Christian churches. Too many women and children, and sometimes men, would pay the price for putting this philosophy into practice, turning the other cheek instead of saving themselves.
Some scholars argue that turning the other cheek is a highly metaphorical phrase. It is not to be taken literally, but instead means that there is a benefit to not using aggression when it can be avoided. This is the position of people like Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Instead of sanctioning the violent overthrow of the status quo, they advocated nonviolent resistance. The numerous sit-ins, strikes and deliberate acts of passive civil disobedience were seen as a means of turning the other cheek as no violence was offered in this disobedience. Instead people quietly stood by what they believed in, taking the entire slap of the law on the other cheek without engaging in violence.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
