10 December 2022
I suspect this will be a difficult blog to write. It is an exploration of the human impacts of turning the other cheek. We’ll do a few things. First, we’ll try to understand what was meant in Matthew 5 in the New Testament of the Bible. Secondly, we’ll look at how that unfolds at different stages of human development and, finally, we’ll juxtapose the Christian meaning with the Stoic meaning, Stoicism having had an enormous impact on many Christian ideas.
In philosophy, one of the noblest of our practices is to deploy the concept of charity when reading another’s ideas. My understanding of philosophical charity is to look at all ideas, even those most offensive to you, as objectively and generously as you can. We’ll bear that in mind, too. Here’s the subject quote:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, turn to him the other also…43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (Holy Bible, King James Version, 1957).
This is about as pithy a quote as I’ve ever had to parse! There are at least five big ideas there:
I believe this is an argument between the Old and New Testaments. The Old saw justice as giving back what had been taken: even-handed rebalancing. The New saw justice as transcendent, that is, rising above the fray. It is hard to argue that the New Testament interpretation is not the more mature vision—it seems to end the dispute through peaceful unwillingness to engage in violence.
Looking at the history, the Judaic interpretation was that justice ought be limited to only one eye, if only one eye was taken from you, rather than more punitive retribution in which the one—who has lost only one eye—removes both from his attacker. But there’s another view.
This blog was brought into being by a question from a reader. She pondered the consequences of having to “turn the other cheek” when it was imposed upon her, as a child. When I stated, above, that turning the other cheek is a more mature unwillingness to engage in violence, that unwillingness must come from within. If, as a child, you were pushed to turn the other cheek, you may never have been afforded the schoolyard right of fighting back. It’s a necessary and important rite of our developmental passage.
When you fight back, and the fight is relatively even, things tend to be forgotten and life goes on. You feel good about yourself because you were dealt a perceived injustice and righted that wrong—action, initiative, courage—it is from such things that a self is forged. But, when you fight back and visibly harm or disgrace your opponent, such a “victory” tends to sit uneasily with all who were present, and especially with the apparent victor. I remember seeing end-of-night fights at bars where two large men would tear apart a single lesser “opponent” with whom they had provoked an earlier dispute. It was a shameful thing to even witness because the injustice was so rank and the event so unnecessary and malign.
However, if you pay attention to your conscience, and you have witnessed or participated in such sadness, turning the other cheek becomes a more appealing choice—to you and by you. That agency is, I believe, the crucial component of rightly turning the other cheek. It is only a nobler alternative when the cheek turner subscribes to the principle herself and acts for herself. When one turns one’s cheek as instructed—against one’s better judgment—it’s an act of self-abnegation and an intellectual and ethical sacrifice of values to obedience. But, as an act of agency, it is also a free choice.
To conclude the discussion on this point—resistance or compliance with evil—my sense is that congruent growth comes through honouring the self. In simpler terms, listen to what your mind and body are telling you, reason that through with principles, and act accordingly. To do otherwise, to sacrifice your judgment to that of another, is to enter a life of servitude and stultified growth.
This discussion has turned out to be more involved than I had first imagined so we’ll cut this short and return to the other four points in the next few blogs.
Dan Chalykoff is working toward an M.Ed. in Counselling Psychology and accreditation in Professional Addiction Studies. He works as a supervised psychotherapist at CMHA-Hamilton where his primary focus is trauma. He writes these blogs to increase (and share) his own evolving understanding of ideas. Since 2017, he has facilitated two voluntary weekly group meetings of SMART Recovery. Please email him (danchalykoff@hotmail.com) to be added to or removed from the Bcc’d emailing list.
References
King James Bible. (1957). Collins’ Clear-Type Press. (Original work published 1769)
You’re a brilliant writer and so articulate. I understand everything you’ve written with a solemn thank you for giving me a voice that I thought was lost.
It’s a privilege and an honour, Nancy.
Very confriming
Thank you for reading and for the kind comment.