Turn the Other Cheek

In doing my research for my paper I was reading a book by Walter Wink called The Powers that Be: Theology for a New Millennium. In this reading I came across an interpretation of Jesus’ non-violent message that isn’t necessarily pertinent to the New Atheism but I found it very interesting so wanted to share and comment on it.

In my paper I spend quite a bit of time on how religion, Christianity specifically, can be used to denounce violence in order to prove it is not the root of violence. One way I did this was by focusing on theology of nonviolence. Walter Wink gives a lengthy discussion about the difference between nonviolence and nonresistance and how nonviolence does not entail nonresistance. Wink then uses the concept of “turn the other check” to show that resistance is an appropriate reaction that does not require violence. I personally had never taken Jesus’ teaching of “turn the other cheek” to even imply any form of resistance in the slightest. But it is one interpretation. Wink explains that what this really means is the opposite of the passivity most people take it to be. Instead it is a denunciation of power, and an act of defiance. In the community of Jesus’ day the left hand was considered unclean so only the right hand was used in daily activities. Therefore hitting someone would have been done with the right hand. Punches were only thrown in fights between equals and were not extremely common. If one were to throw a punch though, using the right hand, it would fall on the left cheek of the opponent. The only way to get it to fall on the right cheek is to use a backhand slap. Wink explains how this was the hit that Jesus was referring to in his teaching. Masters would backhand their slaves, husbands their wives, and parents their children to teach a lesson and to exert power. It sent a message that said I am superior and you must obey me. It was not supposed to inflict physical injury it was just to humiliate and degrade the lesser party. Therefore by turning the other cheek the person hit was provoking a punch instead of a slap. This rendered the “superior” person impotent because if they were to throw a punch, the very action would render the “inferior” as equal and no longer inferior. It was non-submission to the power over someone to turn the other cheek and call for a fight of equals. The simple act of turning the cheek was enough to strip power, but if a punch was thrown it would have an even greater effect to the same end.

I definitely thought this was a very interesting way to interpret this passage, but wondered how widely accepted such an interpretation was. It seems to me that it is not just an interpretation thrown out from left field. Wink is a Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. This is definitely not the only possible way to understand this teaching, but its implications are very interesting to consider.