Liliputin -2203

The words of Matthew "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also " were said tongue-in-cheek "
Donald J.Trump


***
Turning the other cheek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus taught turning the other cheek during the Sermon on the Mount.
Turning the other cheek is a phrase in Christian doctrine from the Sermon on the Mount that refers to responding to injury without revenge and allowing more injury. This passage is variously interpreted as commanding nonresistance, Christian pacifism, or nonviolence on the part of the victim. It has also been interpreted as a way to embarrass a bully.

Scriptural references

The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus:

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 the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

—;Jesus Christ, English Standard Version (Matthew 5:38-42)

In the Sermon on the Plain[1] in the Gospel of Luke, as part of his command to "love your enemies", Jesus says:


But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

—;Jesus Christ, English Standard Version (Luke 6:27-31)

Interpretations

This phrase, as with much of the Sermon on the Mount, has been subject to both literal and figurative interpretations.

Christian anarchist interpretation

Main article: Christian anarchism

Since the passages call for total nonresistance to the point of facilitating aggression against oneself, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, some have advocated Christian anarchism, including Leo Tolstoy who elucidated his reasoning in The Kingdom of God Is Within You.

Nonviolent resistance interpretation

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.

At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.

Wink continues with an interpretation of handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic. The debtor has given the shirt off his back, a situation forbidden by Hebrew law as stated in Deuteronomy (24:10–13). By giving the lender the cloak as well, the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Wink notes that public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, and not just the naked, as seen in Noah's case (Genesis 9:20–23).

Wink interprets the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law, as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.

Righteous personal conduct interpretation

Another interpretation is that Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said," which could mean that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written", which could be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. However, the command to "turn the other cheek" would be not a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person but a command not to take vengeance.

Metaphysical interpretation

In the New Thought community popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, many spiritual teachers such as Emmet Fox viewed Jesus Christ as the greatest teacher of metaphysics that ever lived; that in his teachings he was attempting to explain to the individuals of the day how to improve their lot in life through practical teachings. The Sermon on the Mount records the details of one such seminar. Despite losing much in translation, as well as using ancient metaphors which are easily misinterpreted in the modern age, the tenets of Jesus's teachings, phrases such as 'resist not evil' and 'turn the other cheek' are pure metaphysical instructions.

Rather than taking 'an eye for an eye', instead Jesus encourages us not to resist evil, because giving our attention to evil just invites more evil into our lives. Likewise, if someone should strike us, rather than retaliating and therefore becoming embroiled in a battle, Jesus encourages us to 'turn the other cheek'. This is not (as some may have interpreted) so that the assailant may strike the other, but indicates that turning and walking away from the potential altercation is the only way to get a desirable outcome. Violence begets more violence.

If we get what we think about, then engaging in any thought, word or deed only increases its power and presence in our lives. By asking us to turn the other cheek, Jesus is suggesting we ignore things that we do not want, and instead focus on the things that we do want.


***

tongue-in-cheek.

ADJECTIVE

with ironic or flippant intent.

"her delightful tongue-in-cheek humor" ·

synonyms:

frisky · jolly · fun-loving · lively · full of fun · high-spirited · spirited ·

in high spirits · exuberant · perky · skittish · coltish · kittenish · mischievous · impish · devilish · puckish · roguish · rascally · tricksy · prankish · full of beans · frolicky · gay · frolicsome · gamesome · sportive · ludic

***
Tongue-in-cheek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idiom tongue-in-cheek refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a mock serious manner.

History

The phrase originally expressed contempt, but by 1842 had acquired its modern meaning. Early users of the phrase include Sir Walter Scott in his 1828 The Fair Maid of Perth.
The physical act of putting one's tongue into one's cheek once signified contempt. For example, in Tobias Smollett's The Adventures of Roderick Random, which was published in 1748, the eponymous hero takes a coach to Bath, and on the way, apprehends a highwayman. This provokes an altercation with a less brave passenger:
He looked back and pronounced with a faltering voice, 'O! 'tis very well—damn my blood! I shall find a time.' I signified my contempt of him by thrusting my tongue in my cheek, which humbled him so much, that he scarce swore another oath aloud during the whole journey.

The phrase appears in 1828 in The Fair Maid of Perth by Sir Walter Scott:

The fellow who gave this all-hail thrust his tongue in his cheek to some scapegraces like himself.

It's not clear how Scott intended readers to understand the phrase. The more modern ironic sense appears in the 1842 poem "The Ingoldsby Legends" by the English clergyman Richard Barham, in which a Frenchman inspects a watch and cries:

'Superbe! Magnifique!'  / (with his tongue in his cheek)

The ironic usage originates with the idea of suppressed mirth—biting one's tongue to prevent an outburst of laughter.