I recently learned a new way of understanding what “turning the other cheek” is. Rather than a passive acceptance of abuse, it’s like putting a mirror on the abuser and making them look like the villains (which they actually are). The post is very much alike.
The Cheek Slap in Jesus’ Day
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Atheist here. Always understood it as enduring abuse where unavoidable and not escalating it. It’s not fair but it ends the cycle of abuse assuming you can take it and not be phased too much by it.
In many parts of the world, it’s not uncommon for hands to be the go-to utensils for enjoying a meal. For most of human history, hands have been the primary tool for most things, food consumption included. Today, the tradition is governed by cultural etiquette rules in much of India, Africa, and the Middle East – the birthplaces of human civilization. In majority-Muslim countries, Islamic doctrine dictates that food should be consumed with the right hand, a decree by the Prophet Muhammad that can be found in the Qur’an. This is one of the reasons why in most Middle Eastern countries, the left and right hands have distinct purposes when it comes to activities involving cleanliness and consumption.
Custom dictates that the left hand should be reserved for bodily hygiene purposes, or “unclean” activities, while the right hand is favored for eating, greeting, and other such “clean” activities. It’s best practice to default to the right hand for gift-giving, handing over money, or greeting another person – while the left is primarily for cleaning oneself. For this reason, using the left hand to eat or shake someone’s hand is considered not only unhygienic but potentially insulting as well.
Seems like this proposed Jesus theory doesn’t equalize the situation as much as give your opponent a chance to quadruple up on the insult by slapping you with their medieval toilet brush. Not sure I buy that interpretation as nice as it sounds.
I recently learned a new way of understanding what “turning the other cheek” is. Rather than a passive acceptance of abuse, it’s like putting a mirror on the abuser and making them look like the villains (which they actually are). The post is very much alike.
Source: https://bibleproject.com/articles/what-jesus-meant-turn-other-cheek-matthew-539/
Atheist here. Always understood it as enduring abuse where unavoidable and not escalating it. It’s not fair but it ends the cycle of abuse assuming you can take it and not be phased too much by it.
This is The first time i understood what was meant by this part of the bible.
Yeah this makes a lot more sense than the typical interpretation of, “This is fine, hit me some more. I can take it til you tire of being an asshole.”
What if the aggressor would also back-hand strike the second time, using his left hand now?
Read More: https://www.foodrepublic.com/1573656/why-left-handed-eating-frowned-upon-middle-east/
Seems like this proposed Jesus theory doesn’t equalize the situation as much as give your opponent a chance to quadruple up on the insult by slapping you with their medieval toilet brush. Not sure I buy that interpretation as nice as it sounds.