Tenchu's Thoughts: Turn The Other Cheek
TL;DR
"Turn the other cheek" doesn't have to be followed literally, but we should all strive toward that ideal. And no, neither "turn the other cheek" nor "eye for an eye" will ever apply to Trump and his supposedly g-d-fearing supporters.
Rarebird's Question
Can you explain to me what "turn the other cheek means?" Does that mean you "turn the other cheek" if someone punches you in the mouth? Clearly. most people will fight back. Do you "turn the other cheek" if someone tries to rob you? If there is no gun or knife involved, most people will resist. Ok, I get it in a way if someone insults you or tries to belittle you? But then your reputation and character can be at stake if you "turn the other cheek." First, some context. In Mosaic law, "eye for an eye" requires that anyone who physically harms someone must suffer the same fate. It's the most basic form of justice. Punishment must fit the crime. No more and no less.
Now here's what Jesus said (Matthew 5:38-42 NIV):
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. So yes, if someone literally punches you in the mouth, Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
And if someone wants to rob you, let them have your stuff.
And if someone forces you to do something for them, do even more than what they are demanding from you.
Ackchyually ...
Clearly this command from Jesus flies in the face of reason. Why shouldn't anyone defend himself if he is being attacked? Why shouldn't anyone protect his own property when thieves come to steal it? Why should people be unjustly forced to do something against their will?
Theologians have debated this for over 2,000 years, and the debate still hasn't been settled.
Are Christians justified in self-defense?
Are Christians justified in defending their own property?
Suffice to say that the answer is complicated.
Legalism
One theme that kept popping up during Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was legalism. The authorities and the religious leaders at the time were really big on legalism. They created a science over how to approach the boundaries of a given law without crossing it.
For example, Mosaic law says "Do not commit murder," yet these legal scholars knew how to virtually (if not literally) beat someone to an inch of his life while still not breaking the law. Same thing with adultery, divorce, and other aspects of Mosaic law. I don't remember specifics, but they were really good at coming up with ways to come close to the boundaries without crossing them.
Hyperbole?
Jesus destroys the legalism by taking Mosaic law to its extreme. Jesus mentions that being pissed off at someone is like "committing murder with your eyes." Lusting after a pretty woman is "committing adultery with your eyes."
But Jesus even goes further and says that if your eyes are causing you to sin, gouge them out. "It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." (Matthew 5:29b NIV)
So in a sense, "turn the other cheek" falls under the same category as "gouge out your eyes if you look at Scarlett Johansson and you entertain even one lustful thought about her." (Imagine if that were taken literally. Poor ScarJo would be walking down the street as men literally poke their eyes out.)
Anyway, does such hyperbole really help us? Cause it feels like it does nothing but bring us back to square one.
Journey vs. Destination
Ultimately, Jesus is pointing out how the law is perfect. Maybe a little "too perfect." So perfect, in fact, that none of us could ever fulfill it if we got past the legalism and discovered the real truth behind God's motivations.
But that too wasn't Jesus' ultimate goal. What use would it have been if Jesus simply replaced one form of legalism with a more extreme form of legalism?
Instead, Jesus wants us to move toward Godly perfection, even if that goal can never be reached. "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48 NIV)
No human is perfect or can come close to heavenly perfection, but every human has the ability to take small steps in that direction. And every human has the ability to pray to God and use his help in making those steps.
And God has already shown us the way through Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. We will never get to perfection, but with prayer and purpose, we can move in the right direction and not worry about ever getting to the destination.
In Practical Terms
So back to the question, "How can we turn the other cheek?" What does that mean, really?
It means giving honest consideration to that option and seeing whether that can be a better response than "eye for an eye."
It means giving up your God-given right to retribution (which you still have and always will have) in the hopes that your attacker may see the error of his ways.
It means trusting that God will make up for what you lose in the process, whether it be your material possessions or even your physical well-being.
But ... Do We Really Have To?
In other words, if you decline to turn the other cheek, does that necessarily mean you are disobeying Jesus?
No.
Jesus himself isn't trying to replace Mosaic law. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17 NIV)
Hence if you do practice eye for an eye, and you decline to turn the other cheek, you are not necessarily sinning.
But if you have the means and the ability to turn the other cheek, you really should consider it. And you should also consider whether what you have, in terms of material possessions or even physical health, can be spared in the service of God's will.
That requires that you be honest with yourself, something that I hardly see these days even among those who claim to be "followers of g-d."
Politics
Since this is a political forum, and since you asked, how should "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek" apply in Trump's case?
It's simple. The law is the law. It needs to be fulfilled.
Trump broke the law. He should pay whatever restitution the law demands, even if HE feels it's unjust.
Trump clearly has the means to "turn the other cheek" when it comes to this OMG WITCH HUNT WITCH HUNT WITCH HUNT, but of course, his ego is way too massive to allow him to do that. (He can't even feign "turning the other cheek," which tells you something about how fragile his ego is.)
So we know that Trump will never turn the other cheek.
But what about "eye for an eye"?
Many people mistaken "eye for an eye" with revenge. It clearly isn't.
Instead, "eye for an eye" is the ancient way of saying "let the punishment fit the crime."
And even in the era of Moses, there was due process. There were judges involved. There was a clear written standard that was followed. Even kings had to follow the law.
In other words, you can't make shit up, declare that you were the victim of injustice, then apply retribution to the people that you think aggrieved you.
Trump is clearly doing that, along with all of his bloodthirsty followers.
"But but Trump is no saint! Everyone knows that!"
Right, so let's not apply Christian principles like "turn the other cheek" or "eye for an eye" to a guy who clearly is no saint.
If he is a means to an end, then let's treat him as such and not pretend that Trump is "sent by g-d" to save America, despite what half of all Republicans believe.
Because I'm pretty sure that the One God who sent his only son Jesus Christ to die for our sins would not approve of "ends justify the means."
That "logic" is reserved for someone else.
Tenchusatsu |
