The idea of turning the other cheek, if not one of the more difficult teachings

of Jesus to understand, is certainly one of the more difficult ones to observe

 -- providing it is to be taken without qualification. From the gospel of 

Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 38 and 39, we read the following:



      You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for

a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone 

strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 



There are two ways one can interpret the command to turn the other cheek. 

The first is to interpret the text literally, asserting that it means exactly

what it says. That would impose a duty of nonresistance on all men in all 

circumstances. One cannot, however, require the literal acceptance of verse

38 without also requiring the same of the other verses in that chapter --

such as verses 29 and 30. Verse 29 reads, "... if your right eye causes you 

to sin, pluck it out," and verse 30 adds, "... if your right hand causes 

you sin, cut it off." Taking these verses literally, without qualification, 

could quickly lead one to institutionalized confinement! No. This literal, 

unqualified interpretation seems untenable.



The other way to interpret the text is to say that it means exactly what it 

says, but with an understood reservation for those cases that everyone would 

naturally assume to be exceptions. For example, when I tell my children to 

be good, I do not have to tell them all of what that includes -- i.e., don't 

burn down the house, don't put the neighbor's car in the lake, and so on. 

Those things are understood. This is a normal interpretation. C. S. Lewis, a 

popular Christian theologian, put it like this:



      Does anyone suppose that our Lord's hearers understood him to mean 

that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to 

knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim? 

I think it impossible that they could have so understood him. I believe 

the meaning of the words was perfectly clear -- insofar as you are simply

an angry man who has been hurt, mortify your anger and do not strike back. 

If however, your motives are other than egoistic retaliation, then not only 

are you free to protect yourself and others, rather it is your responsibility 

to do so.(2)
Chad (and I like to call Bob Chad) is in "good" company in blithely dismissing the Lord's rather plain message of pacifism. He is also in good company in allowing his preconceived notions to inform his reading of Scripture, (not that I have a problem with that - heaven save us from those that uncritically accept all the nonsense in their holy tomes), but failing to take the text at its word is the cardinal sin of hermeneutics.

First, reading the passage in context, it is not at all clear that the admonitions of the Sermon are to be taken figuratively. When speaking of the mental-spiritual nature of murder and adultery in 5:21-28, Jesus is universally taken to mean exactly what he says. It's only as he gets a little too absurd for modern taste in 29-30 that the "metaphor" shield drops down. Of course, starting in 31-32, on the topic of divorce, many Christians again take Jesus to mean exactly what he says.

Second, the context of the entirety of Matt 5 is contrasting the moral injunctions given in "the Law" with Jesus's "new deal". The comments on turning the other cheek are given as a contrast to the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" edict. It is clear that Lewis has completely missed the point here. "Eye for an eye" was a standard laid down to govern legal restitution for crimes committed against protected individuals. The idea of being "simply an angry man who has been hurt" does not enter into anywhere. It is clearly a standard for defining the just recompense for crimes committed against my person. It was also probably intended to ensure that restitution did not escalate.

Jesus is clearly saying that in the same way that Christians should not be smug in thinking "i may hate my brother, but at least i haven't murdered him" or "i may lust after my brother's wife, but at least i haven't fucked her", they must not pursue just and legal recourse for crimes committed against their person rather trusting in the Lord to mete out justice and take care of his beloved (like the lilies of the field).

Of course, that doesn't jive with commonsense or the humanist underpinnings of modern Western thought, so Jesus gets re-translated. It's amusing to see how Christians can slice the same the paragraph - hell, sometimes the same sentence - into literal and metaphorical parts to meet their own predefined ideas while accusing the infidel of willfully failing to understand the revelation of god.