Jesus reformed the old testament on the Sermon on the Mount and explained
the differences: Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is called revenge, and God looks after the results. In case of the consideration at that time in human relations where murder and manslaughter was nothing unusual, where people for triviality smashed to itself the skull and this fact by the old rule in the AT was goaded, was it an exceedingly advanced Sermon of Jesus.

The people had to give themselves a new rule to educate themselves to a more civilized behaviour. If you are provoked, so leaves you don't provoke. Who can be provoked by insults, generates negative feelings up to the fury, to the hatred and at last to the uncontrolled power. As well as the "Mohammed Film" of 2012 pointed in which religious rage worldwide many people died. The troublemaker has got force about own feelings, and this is often intended - particularly from religious leaders.

Not to let provoke should not be called, not defend itself to be allowed or to have to renounce the self-defense right, but it should serve the internal constitution. Do so furthermore this what is measured in the respective situation, criticize possibly impertinent behaviour or repulse physical attacks effectively, also by adequate power, but never react on aggression with aggression, hatred or disdain. Then the opponent has won force about you.

How much often quotes, is the best samurai who leaves his sword in the scabbard.

Pretty much: Violence wont solve your problem, it only brings forth more violence and hatred.

Smoke weed and chill baby.

Fun fact: I remember hearing that turning the other cheek was a passive act of defiance. Masters would often hit their servants across the cheek with the back of their right hand, backhanded being a way of showing dominance and right-handed because the left hand was considered 'dirty'. So by turning the other cheek, the master was left with 2 equally undesirable options; hit them open handed (indicating equality) on the other cheek, or refuse and give up authority

Damn you for sneaking knowledge into my head against my will!!!

Everyone considered him the coward of the county.

@littlesoldierboy:
That's not what Christ was getting at. He was not a person of violence or defiance unless that defiance was to go against man's laws in favor of God's Law.

If you look at the passage as a whole, we see 4 examples:

a) if a person forces you to go 1 mile, go 2.
b) if a man sues you for your shirt, give him your coat
c ) if a man slaps your right cheek, turn to him your left
d) give to him who asks and do not turn away from someone who wishes to borrow

Christ's ultimate motive was to simply leave retaliation to God. Jews should have understood this:

Leviticus 19:17-18. "You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD."

Deuteronomy 32:35-36. "Vengeance is Mine, and retribution...for the LORD will vindicate his people and will have compassion on His servants..."

Even the Saducees who only followed the first 5 books of the OT would have remembered these teachings, so Christ isn't advocating prideful defiance, but rather humility and the call to allow God to fill His role as we follow ours.

@Tru, I found the interpretation I was thinking of. There's this book, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination by Walter Wink. In it he interprets this part of the sermon as ways to non-violently subvert the power structure of the time.

As I said originally, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. By turning the other cheek, the assaulter faced a dilemma; a forehanded slap was viewed as a challenge which would imply equality between the two, the left hand was used for 'unclean' purposes so preforming a backhanded slap with this hand would be to admit the act as unclean, and to do nothing showed weakness or lack of authority.

When someone sued you for your shirt/tunic, giving them your cloak as well would leave you naked, not only was this a situation forbidden by Hebrew law according to Deuteronomy, but based on Noah in Genesis, public nudity brought shame on any viewers present, not just the naked.

The going an extra mile part is also interesting because at the time, the occupying Roman troops could command a citizen to carry their things for one mile, no more. If it was found out that an individual had exceeded this distance, the soldier who had demanded their help risked suffering disciplinary actions.

So really the message wasn't to just be passive and compliant to injustices, but rather act in a way that discouraged them from being preformed in the first place while still maintaining a nonviolent approach.

Again, while that sounds like what was being advicated, it isn't. If you look at all of the examples and look at the initial statement, you'll see Christ was calling for non-resistance, not passive defiance. Read through the whole sermon. Don't dissect a single verse and take it differently than the whole passage warrants. It's hard to reconcile your interpretation with "blessed are the peace keepers" and "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you", and "do to others as you would have them do to you" and then in the same breath attempt to say that Christ advocated resistance against authority. It's really a bad interpretation of Scripture (or any work for that matter)

@ littlesoldierboy

I suggest you find a friend and act it out. You will discover the master is put in no dilemma whatsoever by the other cheek being turned, even if he genuinely believes open handed slaps indicate equality.