Log in to become a member of M Randall's Fan Club!
Jesus states in Matthew 5:39 , "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." Some take this verse to mean that it isn't lawful for Christians to defend themselves. There appears to be a lot of confusion on this topic among unbelievers as well as among believers. Are we as Christians just to turn the other cheek no matter what?
If this passage is taken literally without looking at the context or other events in the Bible we would be compelled to let everyone take advantage of us. If this were the standard, Christians would be encouraging evil by turning the other cheek. This surely isn't what Jesus had in mind when He made this statement. To find the biblical truth of the matter one must look at the context of the passage and at other similar events that could enlighten us on this statement of Jesus to turn the other cheek.
What does the passage on turning the other cheek mean? Let's back up one verse and look at the context. Matthew 5:38 , "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:" The statement of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was an Old Testament principle for civil magistrates. The law required that punishment for an offense was to equal or fit the offense.
This rule of an eye for an eye as explained in Exodus 20, Leviticus 24, and Deuteronomy 20 was for the use of the magistrates, the Judges of the Jewish nation. This was to provide for punishment of an evil doer and limit such punishment to that inflicted by the offender. Anything greater would be revenge and revenge belongs to the Lord. Romans 12:19 , "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine I will repay, saith the Lord."
The intent of this rule was to limit punishment to the extent of the harm to the victim. The idea was that the punishment could not be greater than the offense and in this way the offender would suffer to the same extent as their victims had suffered. Leviticus 24:20, "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." This would mean no personal revenge and no vendetta or blood feud leading to an ever escalating cycle of violence.
Christ did nothing to change this rule and found no fault with the rule as it was used by magistrates. But this rule for the magistrates had been carried over into private conduct and some Jewish teachers had made it a rule in which the individual could seek revenge. This rule of an eye for an eye was never meant to be a private retaliation it was to be carried out by the magistrates. Some Jewish teachers used it to mean that an individual could take justice in his own hands and seek revenge. In fact, it is God who we should allow to do the avenging and the person wronged is to allow the magistrates to do the punishing. The magistrates are to limit punishment of the offender to the same harm the offender done to the victim. Anything greater is vengeance. Thus Jesus is saying in Matthew 5:39 that we should completely give up personal vengeance.
There is a difference in giving up personal revenge and confronting evil in self defense. In Genesis we see Abraham defending his relatives by pursuing those who took his brother captive. It should be noted that this action wasn't for revenge but only to secure the safe release of his brother and the return of his property and we would call this self defense. So obviously God allows us to protect our families and relatives and their property. Genesis 14:14-16, " And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus . And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot , and his goods, and the women also, and the people."
In Exodus 22:2-4 we can see the principle of self defense and protection of ones property even by physical force. If someone enters your home at night and life is threatened, one can defend his home with lethal force. However, if it is in daylight hours and there is no life threatening situation one can not use lethal force. Exodus 22:2-4 , "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him for he should make full restitution if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep he shall restore double."
In Nehemiah we see the people working and with a weapon in one hand for defense. A weapon implies the intent to use it in self defense. Nehemiah 4:17-18, "They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me."
There are many other Old Testament passages that could be used to show the principle of self defense but let's turn to a couple in the New Testament. In the New Testament we have Luke 22:36 showing the necessity of self defense. Jesus had previously sent the apostles out into their own country for a short time. Now the apostles would be going out into the world and would face dangers and trials among strangers so Jesus said in Luke 22:36 , "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." They were to go out armed with a sword and that implies the intent to use the sword in self defense and this at the command of Jesus!
The apostle Paul defended himself by insisting on his rights as a Roman citizen. Those who would come up against him were assured that there would be consequences if he were harmed. When about to be scourged Paul said to the Centurion, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?" (Acts 22:25 ). Then when appearing before the chief priests and their council Paul stated, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" (Acts 23:3). Paul did not turn the other cheek in these situations but acted in self defense.
Jesus gives us an example that we can confront wrongdoing as He Himself confronted it when he addressed the injustice done to him by one of the officers of the high priest. John 18:22-23, "And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" Obviously, we can protest an injustice and ask for justice but we must give up the idea of personal vengeance.
So the meaning of the passage on turning the other cheek isn't referring to self defense but to revenge or insults. From the verses following Matthew 5:39 we can see that we should have love for the ones who would do us evil and even though we can confront them in self defense, we cannot seek revenge, but through love we will seek the salvation of those who offend us. It is necessary that we provide defense for our family and property but we are not to seek revenge. Life threatening situations calling for self defense isn't being addressed in the "turn the other cheek" passage.
There are several events throughout the Bible that establish the principle of self defense. However, seeking personal revenge is prohibited. For example, killing someone without cause would be called murder and results from anger or hatred. Jesus stated that not only murderers were in danger of judgment but those who are angry enough to murder are also in danger of judgment. While we may avoid or resist evil when it is necessary for our own security we cannot render evil for evil nor avenge ourselves. We must get beyond this and forgive the offenders while seeking their salvation.
In Matthew 5:21-22 we have Jesus giving additional information about an Old Testament law, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:" Christ taught that not only is outward murder subject to the judgment of God but so is inward hatred. If we bear a grudge we will become angry enough to avenge ourselves but reacting in self defense comes out of fear not anger. Matthew 5:39 refers to revenge and not the principle of self defense.
This author of this Article has choosen to make this article available with free reprint rights. Click here to copy this article.
» left by Ray from California (3 years 110 days ago.)
Typical legalist. The Word is not a text-book but evedence of God's revelation to one's heart. "Eye for eye" was O.T- looking through man's eyes at God or man. "Turn the other cheek" is N.T., the believer looking through God's eyes at man and God. Respond to this comment
» left by Mike Cone from Michigan (3 years 82 days ago.)
Uses excellent literal approach to interpretation. Previous commenter chooses dangerous symbolic approach. God's word communicates many literal principles like: God highly values human life, and expects it to be protected (example Gen 9.5-6). Respond to this comment
» left by j.m. from mi (2 years 334 days ago.)
great article on this subject! Respond to this comment
» left by Janet Kologe from Saylorsburg, PA (1 year 226 days ago.)
THIS WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR ME BECAUSE I'VE HAD A LIFELONG
PROBLEM WITH THIS WHICH HAS MADE ME A DOORMAT AND BROUGHT
UNTOLD PROBLEMS INTO MY LIFE. I WOULD LOVE TO READ AN ENTIRE BOOK
ON THE SUBJECT AND HOW NOT TO TURN THE OTHER CHEEK AND LET PEOPLE
STEP ALL OVER YOU AND RUIN YOUR LIFE. THANKS! Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (1 year 50 days ago.)
My wife and I had a recent disagreement over punishing our children for fighting. I was against all forms of fighting and said, "If my son ever raises his hands, he's getting spanked." My wife felt the exact opposite and feels the children should be punished for NOT defending themselves. This article and others I've found have helped to clear that up. Thank you.
It should also be noted that contextually, if someone strikes you on the right cheek, they are backhanding you with their own right hand (The left hand was typically used for unclean acts). By turning your left cheek to your attacker, you are demanding that he punch you and therefore treat you as an equal.
It IS acceptable to defend yourself. Thank you again for clearing this up. Respond to this comment
» left by camille (346 days 4 hours ago.)
Or perhaps what Jesus was trying to tell us is to 'turn the other cheek' so that we might have another 'look'...in other words, turn your PERSPECTIVE. Look at it from some other vantage point so that you might have a better understanding of WHY? Respond to this comment
» left by SelectedPete from CA (327 days ago.)
"perhaps what Jesus was trying to tell us..." will many times lead us down a slippery slope which usually ends up being "and here's what I'd *like* Jesus to be telling us." Or "I don't agree with what the Bible says here, so here's another version..." The writer in this case did a very good job of laying out context. A contextual void produces huge error with the Bible. Both OT and NT are addressed here, and quite well, I might add. The first reviewer ignores this and simply goes for what he wants the passage to say. Respond to this comment
» left by nicholson alcendor from paris france (262 days 21 hours ago.)
well put, God speaks through His word and we ought to use it. Christ knew that Peter had the sword. keep preaching Respond to this comment
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or
Question:
This Article has been viewed 1,365
times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Sunday, April 10, 2005 View other articles written by M Randall(632)
If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
