There appear to be two main views on turning the other cheek.
The Classical View
The first is what I will call “The Classical View”. This view asserts that the individual is called upon to suffer mistreatment at the hands of an enemy; rather than retaliating,[1] to show kindness. The instructions to “turn the other cheek” and “walk a second mile” are seen within the larger context of an “Exhortation to Love and Mercy” (Luke 6:27-38). This is the view I’ve seen in Evangelical Commentaries like Darrel Bock Baker Exegetical Commentary on Luke[2], and Donald Hagner Word Biblical Commentary on Matthew[3]. As well as the classic expository preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones Studies on the Sermon on the Mount[4].
The Alternate View
What I will call “The Alternative View” arises from the social justice movement. It is critical of the classic view, because it appears to be advocating cooperating with evil, enabling abuse, etc.
Many otherwise devout Christians simply dismiss Jesus’ teachings about nonviolence out of hand as impractical idealism. And with good reason. “Turn the other cheek” has come to imply a passive, doormat-like quality that has made the Christian way seem cowardly and complicit in the face of injustice. “Resist not evil” seems to break the back of all opposition to evil and to counsel submission. “Going the second mile” has become a platitude meaning nothing more than “extend yourself” and appears to encourage collaboration with the oppressor. Jesus’ teachings, viewed this way, is impractical, masochistic, and even suicidal – an invitation to bullies and spouse-batterers to wipe up the floor with their supine Christian victims.
Wink, Walter. The Powers that Be, pg 98
It rightly points out that the word “resist (anthistemi,)” in the expression “do not resist an evil person” most accurately means “to retaliate”. The word is most often used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament as a military term. We are in fact told to “stand against (anthistemi)” the evil one in Ephesians 6:13.[5]
So it is not telling us we shouldn’t resist or oppose acts of evil, but we are not to pay them back in kind.
It’s portrayal of the first strike being a slap (a social insult)[6]is probably also accurate because of Matthew’s emphasis on the right cheek – Hagner notes this[7], but points out that this detail is missing from Luke.
Conclusion
While Wink and others who support the alternative view correctly state that this is a position of strength and not one of submission (contra the classical view), I think they fail in that they only see it as an assertion of our common human equality – as a matter of social justice rather than the Kingdom of God.
To Illustrate:
They believe the first strike is an insult given by a superior. Turning the other cheek is an invitation to treat me like an equal. Basically, an assertion that “I have a dignity equal to your own”.
In the same way walking a second mile turns the obligation of an inferior, “you do this for me because I am greater than you” into a favor “I am offering you help by my own choice” because nobody could require you to walk a second mile legally.
As appealing as the alternate view is, I think it misses the point. It is not simply to assert the equality of all human beings, the point is to assert the greatness of God, the sufficiency of his Kingdom, and the unworldly peace that being a part of it provides his followers.
In other words, you can insult me with a slap on the cheek, or strike me with a fist, but you cannot rob me of the dignity I have as a child of God.
You can ask me to walk a mile, and I will offer to go the second, and the third because you cannot deprive me the value of what I really possess.
Because I am connected to the inexhaustible resources of the kingdom you are no threat to me: no slight can rob me of my dignity as a child of God, no act of robbery can deprive me of the riches of the kingdom. My place with God is secure (Rom 8:31-39).
The reconciliation that God intends we have with our enemies is not a reconciliation based on our common human dignity, but on our common inheritance in him.
[1]Retaliation (anthistemi – to withstand). Sometimes translated “Do not resist (or oppose) an evil person” but more accurately do not retaliate (i.e. see Romans 12:19-21 for Paul’s understanding of this teaching and Prov. 20:21).
[2] “The point is that love involves not defending one’s rights and accepting wrongs committed against one by being willing to forgive, and with the additional proviso that one is willing to turn around a second time and still offer help – even if that means being abused yet again. Love is available, vulnerable, and subject to repeated abuse. Offering the other cheek is not so much an active pursuit a sit is a natural exposure when one reaches out to those who have contempt.” Bock 591
[3] “The disciple does not insist on personal rights. Furthermore, the true disciple does more than is expected. He or she is free from society’s low standards of expectation, being subject only to the will of the Father” Hagner 132.
[4] “Men are always thinking of their rights and saying, ‘I must have them’. That is the spirit of the world and of the natural man who must have his pound of flesh, and insists upon it. That, our lord is concerned to show, is not the Christian spirit. He says we must not insist upon our legal rights even though we may at times suffer injustice as the result” Lloyd Jones, Martin, Studies In the Sermon on the Mount p284.
[5]Wink, Walter. The Powers that Be. P 100
[6] Ibid 101-103
[7] The striking of the right cheek may mean a blow with the back of the hand Hagner 131.
