"Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily"

Gary North challenges the conventional interpretation of “turning the other cheek,” often viewed as a call for moral restraint and personal sacrifice in the face of aggression. Instead, he provocatively labels it a “bribe,” suggesting it is a strategic, temporary measure adopted by Christians when lacking real power, either politically or militarily. The underlying implication is that such nonresistance is not a universal or absolute ethical mandate, but a context-dependent tactic employed when forceful confrontation would be futile or self-destructive.

The characterization of turning the other cheek as a bribe indicates an exchange: the Christian endures an affront or act of violence in hopes of gaining something, perhaps moral high ground, public sympathy, or divine favor, but the primary motivation shifts toward calculated pragmatism rather than principled self-denial. North’s framing calls attention to the dynamics of power and suggests that moral teachings might function differently depending on one’s position within those dynamics.

He also asserts that the Christian’s call to nonviolence is not a blanket requirement, but conditional, “valid for only so long as the Christian is impotent.” When denied the ability to retaliate or resist effectively, Jesus’ followers are to deflect blows and insults, effectively waiting for circumstances to change. Once Christians are no longer politically or militarily powerless, North hints that the logic of turning the other cheek ceases to apply; the injunction transforms from a universally binding principle into a temporary strategy of survival or influence.

North’s interpretation both critiques pacifist readings and highlights the relationship between ethics and real-world limitations. The suggestion is that faith-based forbearance may not be inherently virtuous in all contexts, and that Christian ethics shift according to the believer’s access to power. This reframing complicates and questions the sincerity or permanence of “turning the other cheek,” portraying it as a maneuver within broader struggles for authority and influence rather than a timeless moral absolute.