While reading one of the posts, I don’t even remember which one, someone suggested, “turning the other cheek” regarding some matter. This term was used to mean, “Let bygones be bygones.”

I just can’t help it; I have to point out that that’s not really what phrase ‘turn the other cheek’ means. Over time and in today’s society that is what it has come to mean, but originally it might something entirely different, if fact almost the exact opposite.

This line of course, comes from Matthews Sermon on the Mount 5:38ish. At the time that Matthew was written customs of the time made it permissible for a person of ‘higher status’ to slap the right cheek of any offending person for any transgression. For example a Roman solider could slap pretty much any of the common peoples, and a Master could slap the right cheek of a slave. This custom could be used any place where someone of a higher class was punishing someone of a lower class. The custom was for the Right Cheek only, and only one slap. The person receiving the punishment could do little about it because of their ‘lesser’ status.

Therefore to ‘turn your other cheek’ invites the master/solider or other ‘higher class citizen’ to merit out punishment beyond the custom. The lesser person is suggesting that one slap doesn’t matter and to ‘go ahead slap me again’. This passive aggressive behavior takes the humiliation off of the lesser person, and potentially brings humiliation to the higher because they either 1. Have to ‘give in’ to the lesser and walk away from the situation, thus giving the lesser the upper hand. Or 2. Lose their temper and slap the other cheek, which would also be humiliation to the higher status person.

The same paragraph mentions “if anyone sue you for your coat, give him your cloak as well”, and “if any one forces you to go one mile, with him two”.

Again in the cases of classes someone of a higher class could demand a lesser person’s coat, as payment if money was owed, or really just cuz they could. The lesser person could get the upper hand by also giving their cloak, or robe- basically giving them all their clothes so that the lesser was naked before the higher. This would be embarrassing to the higher, because demanding nudity of someone was offensive, and people would see the higher person as cruel for taking all of someone’s clothes, especially when that person is ‘less that you’ and probably poorer too.

I find the last one the most interesting. Again at the time there were customs (perhaps laws) saying that any Roman solider could demand that any common man carry all his belongings while on a march, but only for one mile. Then the solider would have to take his belongings back, or find another peasant. By insisting on going another mile, the ‘lesser’ would force the Solider to demand his own belongings back, or be seen as cruel for demanding more from someone than custom dictated.

The reason I point these out is that so often the term ‘turn the other cheek’ is used to say, ‘ah just let it go’. But it really is an invitation to passive resistance to authority. It is a way of given tools to the poor and common folk to demand respect of the higher class peoples. It’s about not letting it go at all but to ‘fight the power!’ for lack of a better phrase.

So often we forget the Jesus was revolutionary, who challenged authority, disregarded traditional custom, both secular and Jewish, in unique and, dare I say, subversive ways. Jesus as a Rabble Rouser- that’s someone I can believe in. (maybe)

Side note: the phrase “rule of thumb” refers to the width of a stick that a man could use to beat his wife. As in the stick you beat your wife with can’t be any wider than your thumb. Nothing to do with the bible, it just bugs me when I hear people use it.