The True Historical Meaning Of 'Turn The Other Cheek' For Christians In Roman-Occupied Judea - Christians for Truth
One of the most controversial — and least understood — verses in the New Testament is Christ’s command to his disciples if they are ever struck on the cheek:
“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
As with most verses in the Bible, most Christians are taught to cherry-pick verses to suit their own purposes — often taking them completely out of both the scriptural and historical contexts in which they were written.
This problem is especially true of Matthew 5:39 — as most modern Christians who have been steeped in cultural Marxism and the pernicious dogmas of eastern mysticism — where we have been brainwashed into extolling subversive aliens such as the pacifist, Mahatma Gandhi, as some sort of modern-day “Christ-like” icon.
But Israelites and Christian converts in the Roman Empire — especially in Roman-occupied Judea — were often treated as second-class citizens and subversives — and the Roman soldiers often treated them as such.
After all, the Pharisees and Sadducees conspired to falsely convince the Roman authorities that Christ and His followers wanted to overthrow the Romans and install Christ as their earthly king of Judea — clearly this was an example of projection, as the Pharisees rejected Christ because they believed their true “messiah” would be just another earthly king who would rule over the material world — something that “Jews” today still believe for their coming rabbi/moshiach.
Either way, Christians in the Roman world had to tread very carefully knowing they were being accused of being revolutionaries — and Roman soldiers would often treat them as such.
In this context, we can now look at Christ’s admonition in Matthew 5:39 to “turn the other cheek” when struck — a video was posted on YouTube (view it below) which explains the historical context of this verse — and we have checked it with other sources and found that it is accurate.
“When Jesus told his followers to “turn the other cheek” when struck in the face by an enemy, it has usually been interpreted as a call to Christian pacifism.
However, the meaning was more literal. Jerusalem was under Roman occupation, and according to Roman law, a Roman soldier was legally permitted to strike you on the cheek.
So if you struck back, or otherwise attacked the soldier, you would be imprisoned, punished, or even killed.
And for a people seeking their independence, getting killed over petty disputes was not exactly optimal.
The statement wasn’t an argument to accept your humiliation in every situation — or to never defend yourself. Jesus also told His disciples to buy a sword [Luke 22:36] and to carry a purse when on their missionary trips. Along the road, they would surely encounter brigands who do much more than slap them on the cheek.”
“…[A] a slap on the right cheek meant the soldier backhanded [an Israelite], which was a far more demeaning slap.
‘It was degrading….It was what you gave to an inferior or a slave.’ To not break down emotionally and simply turn the other cheek meant that the soldier couldn’t slap you again on the right cheek, and….’he can’t slap you with his left hand, because that is unclean for both of you.’
The soldier’s only option was to slap with the palm of his hand, and ‘this was not the way to slap a slave. This was reserved for equals.’ Thus, in giving the other cheek, the degraded person asserted his humanity in a brave countermove — a humble response, yet also an act of courage against an oppressive system.”
Yes, there is precedence for this strategy in the Old Testament, notably in Lamentations:
“He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach.”
But the context here in Lamentations is different — it speaks of codes of behavior among Israelites — as opposed to in Matthew where the slap is more likely to be struck by a Roman soldier with the power to have you imprisoned or killed.
In the first thousand years following the conversion of Europeans to Christianity, there was no such culture of Christian pacifism — Christians wouldn’t hesitate to pick up their swords and defend their faith and nations in some of the most bloody and horrific battles the world had ever witnessed.
So what changed?
But all that changed in the 20th century with the rise of ersatz “judeo-Christianity” — a judaized, watered-down form of Christianity which emphasized one’s “personal relationship” with “Jesus” while forsaking the Christian’s responsibility to defend his own nation and race — which are the foundations of the faith.
At the end of World War II — and the defeat of the “evil Nazis” — this traditional Christian responsibility toward one’s nation and race became demonized and pathologized — while “individualism” was elevated to the highest of virtues — culminating in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
This elevation of personal rights — no matter what they are — over the collective good became fundamental to the new ideal “human” world citizen — and Christianity experienced countless schisms into thousands of different denominations, each pursuing their own path to “personal salvation” regardless of its effect on the entire body of Christendom and its Christ-bearing race.
This watered-down Christianity was eviscerated — reduced to cherry-picked platitudes such as “turn the other cheek” — “judge not lest you be judged” — “do unto others” — and simply “Jesus loves you.”
Christians have failed to heed Paul’s warning in Ephesians 4:5,
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”
And again in 2 Corinthians 11:3,
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
The eternal enemies of Christendom couldn’t have asked for less effective versions of the faith capable of combating them.
They knew that no matter how they subverted and destroyed our Christian nations and peoples that Christians would predictably “turn the other cheek” instead of fight back — while pretending that those who conspired to murder their Messiah didn’t now have all Christians in their crosshairs.
It’s no wonder that many White Nationalists who recognize who our eternal enemies are look at this ineffectual form of Christianity with disgust — and have rejected it outright — while ignoring it’s past when it could still neutralize those enemies and keep them in check.
Christ chased the money changers out of the Temple with a whip — and those same money changers now not only control our houses of worship — temples of Mammon worship which live in constant dread of losing their coveted 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status “for fear of the Jews” who can take it away if these infiltrated churches get out of line.
Those same money changers now control not just our churches, but our entire nations — but we “turn the other cheek” and dare not do anything about it because, after all, they call themselves God’s Chosen People™ — and have convinced us that they are our “betters” both in the faith and materially — and that our “salvation” is dependent on our blessing and financially supporting them.
There is no future for a Christianity that is divorced from the White European race which has been its standard bearers for the last 2,000 years — a race that wouldn’t hesitate to obey Christ’s command to pick up a sword and purse and defend themselves instead of “turning the other cheek.”