Many people might have confused Jesus’ situational prescriptions for universal ones, in this case taking the “turn the other cheek” advise to mean always yielding to aggressors. When money changers were desecrating the temple, Jesus didn’t give over to them another temple to desecrate. Instead He took immediate action to stop the bad behavior.
Maybe the “turn the other cheek” advice was for when Jesus could see that the aggressor wasn’t totally devoid of compassion. Turning the other cheek as an appeal for peace only works if the aggressor has mercy and humanity. A psychopath will just keep hitting you on both cheeks and anywhere else, and I don’t think that’s what Jesus wanted us to endure.
Turning the other cheek as an appeal for peace only works if the aggressor has mercy and humanity.
Only Jesus is capable of knowing other people's inner motives. It's not for us to assume and fix a permanent label on people. People are capable of change and repentance.
In Acts 14, once when Paul was about to be stoned, he fled town. Another time he was stoned and did not fight back. When God spoke about Saul's conversion he said, "I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." Suffering persecution for Christ and the proper response to persecution is in a different category than Jesus' cleansing of the temple. Cleansing the temple is correcting the incorrect teaching and application of the law by the religious leaders. It isn't about the relationship between the God's people and those who are not God's people.
Again, confusing the situational for the universal. Not everyone is St Paul.
AI offers some context on the original advice:
Cultural Significance: In the first century, a slap on the cheek was not a minor event but a public dishonoring”
Public dishonor is more minor than physical injury. It’s easier to take the dishonor and not be afraid of more dishonor than it is to take a continued beating that can leave a person disabled and unable to spread the Gospel. For example, Charlie Kirk has no cheek to offer a shooter now.
Many people might have confused Jesus’ situational prescriptions for universal ones, in this case taking the “turn the other cheek” advise to mean always yielding to aggressors. When money changers were desecrating the temple, Jesus didn’t give over to them another temple to desecrate. Instead He took immediate action to stop the bad behavior.
Maybe the “turn the other cheek” advice was for when Jesus could see that the aggressor wasn’t totally devoid of compassion. Turning the other cheek as an appeal for peace only works if the aggressor has mercy and humanity. A psychopath will just keep hitting you on both cheeks and anywhere else, and I don’t think that’s what Jesus wanted us to endure.
What in incredible insight shared here -- TY, Markus.
"Turning the other cheek as an appeal for peace only works if the aggressor has mercy and humanity."
+1
Only Jesus is capable of knowing other people's inner motives. It's not for us to assume and fix a permanent label on people. People are capable of change and repentance.
In Acts 14, once when Paul was about to be stoned, he fled town. Another time he was stoned and did not fight back. When God spoke about Saul's conversion he said, "I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." Suffering persecution for Christ and the proper response to persecution is in a different category than Jesus' cleansing of the temple. Cleansing the temple is correcting the incorrect teaching and application of the law by the religious leaders. It isn't about the relationship between the God's people and those who are not God's people.
Again, confusing the situational for the universal. Not everyone is St Paul.
AI offers some context on the original advice:
Public dishonor is more minor than physical injury. It’s easier to take the dishonor and not be afraid of more dishonor than it is to take a continued beating that can leave a person disabled and unable to spread the Gospel. For example, Charlie Kirk has no cheek to offer a shooter now.