Editing Turning the other cheek (section)

===Nonviolent resistance interpretation===
Jewish scholars Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Brettler state that the issue is about justice after an injury has been committed. They argue that since the Greek word used in Matthew 5:39 for 'resist' is {{lang|grc|ἀντιστῆναι}} (which usually refers to armed resistance or violent struggle) Jesus is offering to confront violence, maintain one's honor, and shame the perpetrator, instead of escalating violence, or losing dignity. By offering the left cheek, the victim resists humiliation by inviting a right-handed jab which exposes the slap as a violent act that failed to reduce the humanity of the victim, thus challenging the perpetrator and shaming them for cruelty of treatment.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Levine |first1=Amy-Jill |last2=Brettler |first2=Marc |title=The Bible with and without Jesus: How Jews and Christians read the same stories differently |date=2020 |publisher=Harper One |isbn=9780062560155 |pages=201–203}}</ref>

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.<ref name= "engaging-powers">{{cite book |last=Wink |first=Walter |date= 1992 |title=Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination |pages= 175–82 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=qNAEjt_Yh5cC |publisher= Fortress Press |isbn= 978-0-80062646-4 |access-date= December 27, 2013}}</ref> 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).<ref>{{bibleverse|Deuteronomy|24:10–13}}</ref> 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).<ref>{{bibleverse|Genesis|9:20–23}}</ref>

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 (Roman law)|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.<ref name= "angaria">{{cite book |author=Th. Mommsen |title=Codex Theodosianus 8:5:1|url= http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Constitutiones/CTh08.html#5}}</ref> 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.<ref name= "angaria talmud">{{cite book | first= Michael | last = Avi-Yonah |title=The Jews Under Roman and Byzantine Rule: A Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest}}</ref>