|
SUBJECT:
Matthew 5:38-41 Turning the other cheek
QUESTION: Do
these verses show that we are not to resist those attempting
to kill us or rape us?
ANSWER:
Matthew 5:38-41
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth:
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.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away
thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him
twain.
The verses do not oppose one protecting himself from one
seeking to kill him or rape them. Notice the commentary on
Matthew 5
Matthew 5:38-41
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth:
[An eye for an eye ...]
This command is found in Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20, and Deut
19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate
the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and
tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a
judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with
the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon
himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to
magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct,
and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They
considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the
same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour
remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no
reference to private revenge, that it was given only to
regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was
to be governed by different principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are
not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to
set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But
even this general direction is not to be pressed too
strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see
our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than
to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human
and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It
cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should
sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and
not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed
religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our
Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he
intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he
would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far
more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.A
doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had
believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to
be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he
confines himself to smaller matters, to things of
comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we
had better take wrong than to enter into strife and
lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the
cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it
patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however,
prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice
of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us,
as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See
John 18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is
litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law
can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive
lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him
rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of
justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is
merely a question about property, and not about conscience
and life. ~from Barnes' Notes
Note:
Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our
families murdered rather than to make resistance. These
verses are talking about other types of assaults such as
lawsuits and unjust regulations. It is not talking about
deadly attacks by those who are seeking to murder. One is
completely justified to flee or to fight for their life.
Again I am going to tell you that God protects those who He
has called and this situation just does not come up. I have
never seen it though it may have come up somewhere.
Here is another commentary:
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.
[Resist not evil] Or,
the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded, too (NT:3588)
poneeroo (NT:4190) ought to be translated. Our Lord's
meaning is, "Do not repel one outrage by another." He that
does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a wicked
person.
[Turn to him the other also]
That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready to suffer
patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these
exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted
for righteousness' sake. Let such leave the judgment of
their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer. The Jews
always thought that every outrage should be resented; and
thus the spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.
~from Adam Clarke's Commentary
Note:
Again, nothing here about an admonition in face of deadly
force.
Looking on the Internet, I found the following Biblically
based statement regarding the Bible and defending yourself.
SELF DEFENSE, WEAPONS, AND THE BIBLE
BY RYAN HICKS
Many people in the name of "kindness" are saying that a
Christian cannot bear arms. They believe that bearing arms
for self-defense is unbiblical and that Christ taught
passivism. They will use verses that relate to religious
persecution like Matthew 5:39 which says, "But I [Jesus]
say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
They also use Peter's cutting off Malchus' ear and Jesus'
rebuke of Peter for trying to live by the sword (John
18:10-11) as a reason not to bear arms and defend self,
family, and friends.
If there was a place in the New Testament where Jesus
commanded the purchasing of a weapon then it alone would
destroy the theory of wimpy "Christians" that are too
cowardly to defend self, family, and friends and twist
Scriptures to defend their cowardice (Cp. Revelation 21:8).
There is a place where Jesus commands the purchasing of a
weapon, not to further the religion like Roman Catholicism
does, but for defense.
Luke 22:36-38
36 Then said he unto them, 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.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet
be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the
transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And
he said unto them, It is enough.
Jesus told His disciples to buy swords BEFORE He rebuked
Peter for cutting off the servants ear. They said they had
two swords, and Jesus approved of this as being enough to
defend themselves. He did not rebuke Peter for the
possessing of a weapon for self-defense or the defense of
others in need, but because Peter was trying to stop what
God had ordained, namely His going to the cross. That is why
Jesus rebuked Peter.
John 18:3-11
3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers
from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with
lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon
him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto
them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood
with them.
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went
backward, and fell to the ground.
7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said,
Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore
ye seek me, let these go their way:
9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of
them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the
high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The
servant's name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the
sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not
drink it?
Clearly Jesus did not rebuke Peter's care for Him and
defending Him, rather He rebuked Peter because Peter was
trying to stop Jesus from being taken to die and drinking
the cup which the Father had given Him. This was not the
first time Jesus had to rebuke Peter for trying to stop
Jesus from drinking the cup which the Father gave Him
(Matthew 16:21-23).
Thus, the plain reading of the Scripture's account of Peter
cutting of the man's ear and Jesus rebuking him has nothing
at all to do with forbidding self-defense or the defense of
others, nor does it forbid the possessing of weapons.
The other main argument used by people who are too cowardly
to defend themselves and others (which
is mighty ungodly) is Matthew 5:39 which reads:
Matthew 5:39
But I [Jesus]
say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that what
Jesus explains for us to do is not a life or death
situation. Also, this mainly has to do with persecution for
His name's sake, which we are to be faithful witnesses even
unto death.
Other verses in the New Testament like Matthew 5:39 are:
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.
Hebrews 10:30
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me,
I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall
judge his people.
1 Peter 3:9
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but
contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called,
that ye should inherit a blessing.
These verses obviously are not referring to not defending
yourself in life and death matters, but rather everyday
matters let the Lord avenge. When it comes to life and death
that is what we have the sword or other weapons that Jesus
commanded His disciples to buy.
There are many times in the Old Testament where not seeking
vengeance is mentioned. A few verses are:
Proverbs 20:22
Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD,
and he shall save thee.
Deuteronomy 32:35
To me [the LORD] belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their
foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity
is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make
haste.
You may claim that if we are not to avenge ourselves then we
surely cannot defend ourselves even in life and death
situations, but compare how you would make David's
statements contradictory with that logic. Take his
statements below.
Psalms 94:1
O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom
vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.
Psalms 18:32-34
32 It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my
way perfect.
33 He maketh my feet like hinds' feet, and setteth me upon
my high places.
34 He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is
broken by mine arms.
Psalms 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to
war, and my fingers to fight:
While the Presbyterian view of predestination is unbiblical
and false, I think that the following story about a
Presbyterian minister makes a good point.
A Presbyterian minister rode into town on horseback. He was
met by a group of ministers who noticed his gun on his side.
They said, "I thought you believed in predestination?" The
minister answered, "Yes, I do." So the group asked, "Well,
why do you carry that gun then?" The minister looked at them
and said, "Well, because it may just be that some thief
tries to rob me, and that may be the day God predestined him
to die."
The point to be taken from this is that God may use you to
administer vengeance. Take for example after Aaron had
helped make the golden calf the Bible says,
Exodus 32:26-28
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who
is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the
sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of
Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and
out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every
man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man
his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of
Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three
thousand men.
The vengeance of killing the wicked was the Lord's, but He
used men to administer that vengeance. We are given the
charge of administering vengeance when our lives are at
stake or the lives of others.
Moses is a good example of someone defending another and not
being rebuked for it.
Exodus 2:11-12
11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was
grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on
their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew,
one of his brethren.
12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw
that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in
the sand.
Rather than run away like many of these pretend Christians
that are against self-defense and bearing arms, Moses did
the godly thing and defended one of his brethren. Stephen,
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, spoke of Moses'
defending the defenseless and said,
Acts 7:23-25
23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his
heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.
24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and
avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:
25 For he supposed his brethren would have understood how
that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood
not.
This is the New Testament account of this event and it was
praised, not condemned. God joys in His children defending
the defenseless rather than pretending to be righteous by
twisting the Scriptures into a veil for their cowardice.
Defending one, even unto death, is not something to be taken
lightly, but prayerfully and wisely. Killing should be the
very
last thing we want to do, but we also should not shrink and
be cowardly when the time comes to defends ourselves and/or
others.---end---
*********************
RETORICAL QUESTIONS: Based on your reasoning what if
someone came to your house and asked to rape the women in
your family. Would to "turn the other cheek" and escort the
evil people to the bedroom?
If you knew there were thieves in your town and that they
were stealing from homes in your neighborhood, would you
open all your doors and put your money and valuables out in
front of the house for the thieves or would it be okay for a
person to lock the door and put the money in a safe?
If you came home one day and a man had just broken into your
house and was about to rape your two year old sister, would
you just go about your business, sit at your computer and
answer your e-mail or would you defend the two year old.
How would you prevent him from going ahead with the rape?
If someone called you on the phone and stated to you that
they were coming to your house within the hour to kill you
and your family with a gun, what would you do?
In answering these questions, I would ask that specific
scriptures be given to support the answers given.
*************
Here is another statement which we agree with that speaks
directly to Matthew 5:
The Bible and Self-Defense
It may not be the Canadian way, but according to the
Bible, it is legitimate to use force, even life- taking
force, in
self-defense. Exodus 22:2-3 says: "If the thief is
caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies,
there will be
no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has
risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his
account...."
The principle behind this Biblical law is, according to
many commentators, that life-taking force may be used by a
person when, and only when, lives are being threatened.
This is shown by the law's distinction between night and
day. Since the person threatened at night cannot
appraise the threat posed by the intruder, he may
justifiably
assume the worst - that he is dealing with a threat to
the lives of those present. If, however, the invasion takes
place
during the day, the person is not justified in taking
life, because life-taking force may not be used against what
is
verifiably a thief, who threatens only property. In
other words, killing to protect property is wrong and a
crime. The
only time a private individual may take the life of
another is in order to defend the lives for which he is
responsible.
While this Old Testament law may justify self-defense,
many Christians believe that Christ teaches us a "more
spiritual" way in the Sermon on the Mount : "You have
heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth. But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil;
but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the
other also (Matthew 5:38-39)."
The Sermon on the Mount is often interpreted as Christ
drawing a series of contrasts between the Old Testament
law and His own "new" teaching. But it is significant
that Christ introduces each of His contrasts with the
phrase:
"You have heard it was said..." rather than "It is
written...." He is not contrasting God's Old Testament law
("It is
written") with His own teaching (as if God's moral
character reflected in His law had changed between the
Testaments): rather He is showing the stark contrast
between the Rabbinical interpretation of the law ("You have
heard it was said"), and the true heart-felt obedience
to the commands which God desires.
The Old Testament law, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth" is found in several places in the law (Exod
21:24,25; Lev 24:20; and Deut 19:21). It is an idiom:
that is, a non-literal phrase which encapsulates a truth -
in this
case the legal truth that the punishment must fit the
crime. Regardless of someone's desire for vengeance, God's
law
limits the severity of the punishment: it must not
exceed the severity of the damage done. Does this law
justify
personal vengeance? No. Read in context, the law is
clearly not addressing individuals but rather instructs
civil
judges in their administration of courts of law: "and
he shall pay as the judges decide" (Exod 21:22). And, as the
subsequent verses in Exodus 21 go on to clarify, this
was not to be a literal knocking out of teeth or gouging of
eyes, but rather a reminder to judges to punish fairly
and proportionately. (An exception is the rule: "a life for
a life"
which is to be applied literally - see verse 29, for
example.)
This law of proportional punishment was actually meant
to prevent personal vengeance, by specifying that the
penalty for crimes must be exacted only by the civil
authority, and be no more severe than warranted by the
crime.
Christ was not renouncing the Old Testament standard of
judgment in His statement, but issuing a stiff rebuke to
the religious teachers of His day who had twisted this
law and applied it to personal slights in order to justify
their
own vindictive desires.
But when Christ goes on to say: "do not resist him who
is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to
him the other also," is he laying down a "new" New
Testament ethic of non- resistance? It is the Old Testament
which says, in Leviticus 19:18, "You shall surely not
take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your
people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself,"
and Proverbs 25:21 tells us, "If your enemy is hungry, give
him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water
to drink." Personal vengeance is forbidden - in both
Testaments.
What then, is the meaning of Christ's exhortation? If
it is to be taken literally, Christ himself (in John 18:23)
and the
Apostle Paul (in Acts 23:3) both failed to live up to
it. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount it seems clear
that Christ is addressing the heart attitude of a
person towards those who mistreat him, rather than making a
categorical statement about all use of physical force.
As Robert Culver writes in his book, The Peace-Mongers:
"such precepts of Jesus should be related to the heart
... rather than to external procedures. We must always act
in
the spirit of Christian meekness, grace, and kindness:
'As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men' (Rom
12:18). This means we should have regard for the true
good of people rather than simply to give them what they
say they need or to yield to their every demand. Blind
submission was not what Jesus had in mind...." Christ's
teaching rules out any and every self-centred use of
force, but it does not address the non-selfish use of force
for
the defense of human lives. ---end---
Here is another statement I found on the Internet which we
agree with:
Jesus' complete statement is "If someone strikes you on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course, any
striking is a painful blow, but the striking in this case is
meant as a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a
right-handed person strikes someone's right cheek,
presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand rather than
the fist. In the eastern culture this is considered an
insult of the highest order. But Jesus says that His
disciples should gladly be willing to endure the insult
again.
This passage has nothing to do with self-defense. Christians
are permitted to defend themselves and their families
(Exodus 22:2;
Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1;
25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16) and to use God-ordained authority
to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8;
Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29). What is forbidden is the taking of
vengeance (Romans 12:17-21), bitterness (Ephesians 4:31),
and retaliation (1 Peter 2:23). These are absolutely
forbidden by Jesus and the apostles.
Notice the commentary:
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.
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. Our Lord's own meek, yet dignified bearing, when
smitten rudely on the cheek (John 18:22-23), and not
literally presenting the other, is the best comment on these
words. It is the preparedness, after one indignity, not to
invite but to submit meekly to another, without retaliation,
which this strong language is meant to convey.
~from Jamieson, Fausset, and
Brown Commentary
back to the top |