What Does It Mean to Turn the Other Cheek?

By Jason Smith

Photo Credit: Allan Swart

I have had several conversations recently with other Christians who have considered the question: “Is it ever right for a Christian to practice self-defense against an attacker?”

Perhaps you read that and think it’s a no-brainer. Of course, you can. You have every right to defend yourself. However, I’ve talked with many Bible-believing Christians who would disagree. And the text they almost always turn to when arguing against self-defense is found in the Sermon on the Mount:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:38-39, ESV)

So, what exactly did Jesus mean when He commanded us to “turn the other cheek”? When He says, “Do not resist an evil person,” does that mean we should never defend ourselves against a violent aggressor? Or what about if our family or loved ones are in danger? Can we still not resist the evil person who is about to harm them?

Before answering, I want to let this whole idea of non-resistance percolate for a moment. Too often, I’ve heard knee-jerk responses to the questions above that seem to ignore altogether what Jesus said. People often use terms like “crazy,” “moronic,” and “weak” when talking about non-resistance to violence. Ironically, these are the very words the world uses when they hear about a crucified king.[1] We cannot allow our own impulses, desires, and assumptions to muffle our Lord’s words. If Jesus really is our King, then we should be willing to submit our hearts to whatever He commands – even if such obedience initially seems unthinkable.

I’ll be very candid here. The idea of letting someone who has just slapped me take another whack at me goes against everything in me. Think of the times that a car pulls out in front of you or when someone rudely interrupts you or when someone intentionally slights you. What is your natural response? You’re hot, bothered, and ready to put people in their place… or is this just a struggle for me? What Jesus is confronting here is our natural response to want to hit back.

Most biblical scholars agree that a slap on the cheek was more often viewed as an insult, rather than a violent attack. So what Jesus is probably forbidding is returning insult for insult. That said, how should we think about self-defense against physical attacks in light of this text?

We live in a culture that is inundated with violence. We love watching movies where our favorite action heroes take sweet vengeance on those bad guys. We often talk about “payback” and “my rights.” As Khan tells Captain Kirk in one of the Star Trek films, “Kirk, old friend, do you know the Klingon proverb, ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’?.”[2] Or, as Jesus explained this principle: “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” That was the lex talionis, the principle of just retribution in Jewish law: the punishment must fit the crime.

On the one hand, this desire to get even isn’t purely sinful. Woven into this impulse is our natural thirst for justice, an evidence of God’s moral law written on our hearts. We long to see wrongs put right and to have the evildoer punished. However, within our fallen hearts there is a slippery slope from a genuine yearning for justice to a sinful desire for personal vengeance.

Interestingly, the whole purpose of the lex talionis in Jewish law was to avoid needless cycles of vengeance. Think of all the gang violence, vendettas, and family feuds throughout history, the latter of which is the context for Shakespeare’s fictional Romeo and Juliet. So the lex talionis was intended to curtail the hostility between two parties that naturally tends to escalate. The local justice system would punish the guilty and right the wrongs.[3] However, the Jewish scribes began to extend this principle from the Jewish law courts to personal relationships. Ironically, this undermined the whole point of that law. By the time of Jesus, it meant: “You punched my eye. Now I get to punch your eye!”

This explains why all of Jesus’s examples involve individuals laying aside their rights out of love for those who wrong them.

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:39-42, NIV)

In each example, Jesus calls the wronged party to demonstrate extraordinary love where anger and retaliation would naturally follow. Jesus is saying that Christians must surrender this deep-seated impulse to get even – and more than that, to replace this impulse with tangible love for those who wrong us (see Matthew 5:44). Wanting justice is not wrong, but Jesus forbids taking justice into our own hands.

First and foremost, followers of Jesus are called to be radical peacemakers. We are to deny our thirst to get even, crucify all fleshly desires for personal vengeance, and stamp out the wildfire of violent retaliation. We are to aim for reconciliation and forgiveness where the natural impulse is to hit back, whether metaphorically or literally.

I can hear the objection: But this sounds crazy! I’m not going to let criminals go free, causing chaos in the world! With this very objection in mind, Paul writes:

“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12:17-19, ESV)

How can you lay aside this desire for vengeance while keeping a clear conscience? Leave room for the wrath of God. It is God’s role, not yours, says Paul, to carry out vengeance. You say, But I want justice! So does God. Which is why, in the very next chapter of Romans, Paul explains that the governing authorities are God’s appointed means of administering justice in a fallen world. Perfect and final justice in eternity is coming, certainly, but even today God appoints police officers, law courts, and judges to administer justice. Scripture even calls such authorities “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:5, ESV). True, these institutions are not perfect, but they are there for our good.

This is one area I cannot agree with Preston Sprinkle, author of Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence. While I loved so much of what Preston said, he argues that Christians can never use lethal weapons – even when serving in the police or military – because Christians are never to kill.[4] But I believe Scripture differentiates between murder (lawless killing) and wartime or judicial killing.[5] It is because these God-ordained authorities carry the sword of justice that I, as a citizen, should not.

When a band of temple soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword and sliced off the servant’s ear. Jesus sharply rebuked Peter, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, ESV). Then, with stunning love, Jesus knelt down and healed this man who had come to arrest Him. Jesus was vividly demonstrating for all His followers that His kingdom would not spread through violence and warfare.

When Pilate questioned Jesus about what kind of a king He was, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 19:36, ESV).

Suffering wrong without vengeful retaliation doesn’t make you a wimp or a coward. In fact, God calls it a “gracious thing.” “For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly” (1 Peter 2:19, ESV).

When Jesus calls us to turn the other cheek, we need to remember that this is precisely what He did when He was slapped. “Then they began to spit in Jesus’ face and beat him with their fists. And some slapped him” (Matthew 26:67, NLT). He endured the very thing to which He calls His followers.

And Peter tells us that in enduring such ruthless violence, Jesus was modeling the kind of attitude we should have when others mistreat us.

“To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps… When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:21, 23, NIV)

So we come to the big question: Does this mean we are never to defend ourselves? I’ve considered this question a great deal in light of Scripture, and I really don’t think that Jesus is making an absolute statement ruling out all forms of self-defense. However, in light of everything we’ve seen in Scripture, our self-defense should always be measured and should only be about bare protection, not retaliation. Christians should never view themselves as self-appointed vigilantes executing justice on wrongdoers in the name of God.

Jesus calls us to love even our enemies. That means in our self-defense, we should try to bring the least amount of harm to our attacker while still stopping the attack. Lethal force should be avoided at all costs.

I’ve come to this conclusion because there are numerous cases in Scripture where God seems to permit self-defense. For example, when Nehemiah and his men were rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem, they carried a sword to defend themselves.

“Those who carried burdens were loaded in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and held his weapon with the other. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” (Nehemiah 4:17-18, ESV)

They completed the wall and God clearly blessed their efforts, implying that this is a good example to follow. In the New Testament, Paul escaped danger by being let down in a basket from a window in Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:32-33). When he was mistreated in Philippi, he appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen. He also welcomed protection from Roman soldiers more than once (Acts 21:32-22:1, 23:12-22). Even Jesus escaped violent attacks by slipping away from the crowds, prior to the cross (Luke 4:29-30; John 8:59, 10:39). While we don’t see occasions where Christians fight back in the New Testament, it seems that these examples demonstrate that reasonable self-defense is endorsed rather than forbidden.

When Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek,” we have to take this command in light of other passages that allow for self-defense. We have to see there is a difference between fighting back to defend oneself and taking vengeance on someone who has hurt you.

For example, if a man is assaulting a woman, do we really think Jesus meant she can’t use a weapon to fend him off? There are numerous passages in Scripture that call for rescuing the oppressed and vulnerable, so it only makes sense that one is encouraged to defend oneself (Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 31:8-9).

At the same time, Christ tells us that following Him includes radical self-denial and cross-carrying. So, if God calls us to suffer for His sake in persecution – simply by taking a beating or even being killed – we can accept it. We are in good company when we do this. And Scripture says that when we suffer in the same manner as Jesus suffered, we experience a sweet communion with Him (Philippians 3:10).

But what about the attacker at the door? Shouldn’t Christians do everything they can to defend their own families?

There are actually numerous texts that speak to this issue. For example, Exodus 22:2-3 speaks to God’s approval of defending one’s own home. Elsewhere, we see that the head of the home is called to care for those in his household, which would clearly include defending against violent aggressors (1 Timothy 5:8).

There is a lot more that could be discussed here, and we have to see that this is a matter of Christian conscience, where believers must learn to disagree charitably. When in doubt, we should follow the love principle. We should make it our aim in life to show love to even the most wicked and vile offenders. Yet, we cannot allow this love for enemies to abrogate our love for our neighbors, our love for human life, and our love for justice.


[1] See 1 Corinthians 1:18-25.

[2] From the film The Wrath of Khan.

[3] It’s interesting to note that the Hebrew Scriptures even take into account accidental killings (manslaughter)

[4] As I read Preston’s book, there was so much to love about it. His overarching principle of commitment to non-violence was, for the most part, measured and biblical. I loved the tenacious commitment to love even the worst of enemies and seek their good, despite what harm they may cause you. But I simply cannot agree with his view of Christians never carrying lethal weapons in the military or police.

[5] The Hebrew word ratsach found in commandment “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13) is never used in a military context. Ratsach should really be translated “murder” or occasionally “manslaughter” (accidental killing).

6 thoughts on “What Does It Mean to Turn the Other Cheek?

  1. David Bell's avatar David Bell

    This is a well-thought-out post. Interestingly, one of the things I realized two or three years ago when learning about self-defense laws was that the laws in all 50 states basically agree with the Bible, so if you follow the principles of Scripture you are pretty safe legally. Just one example: there has to be an imminent threat before using any kind of force (deadly or non-deadly). There is no room for retaliation. If someone stabs you or a loved one and begins to run off (i.e. imminency is over), shooting him would likely put you in prison. Other biblical principles apply as well.

    I’d be interested to know what you think about Luke 22:36-38 where Jesus tells his disciples to get a sword. Several Christians, including Wayne Grudem, believe this is an argument for self-defense, as swords were what people used for personal protection in those days, and apparently two disciples carried them without rebuke. I have yet to hear a convincing alternate explanation.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jason Smith's avatar Jason Smith

      Thanks, David, for that great insight. I’ve heard various interpretations of Luke 22:36-38. One is that Jesus was saying, “Enough of this!” as though Jesus was disappointed they would take his words so literally a couple sentences before (v. 36). I doubt that interpretation is right, but I also agree with the larger point that Jesus was discouraging armed defense to spread the gospel, given His rebuke of Peter using his sword a little bit later (vv. 49-51). Others, like Preston Sprinkle, have argued that Jesus wanted two swords present to fulfill the prophecy that He would be numbered with transgressors (v. 37). While I see why that interpretation convinces some, it also seems a bit strange to say this captures the full purpose of Jesus’s statement to get a sword, given that Jesus’s other suggestions to take a moneybag and knapsack seem to have a very practical purpose. Ultimately, our confidence should be in God, not a “sword” (or a gun).

      It’s not an easy passage to understand, so I think it’s wise to read it in light of the rest of the New Testament. Given that there are no accounts of the Apostles drawing their swords when persecuted, I would lean toward the understanding that having only “two swords” (not twelve) was meant to defend against attacks from robbers along the highways (which were apparently very common) in their travels. But they were not to be used to spread His kingdom or avoid persecution for the faith, which the New Testament regularly calls Christians to endure. I’m open to hearing other interpretations.

      Like

  2. Thank you for a well thought out and researched message.
    My maternal grandfather was registered as a Pacifist in WWI. However he worked as an inventor and invented methods to help soldiers protect themselves while in combat.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jason Smith's avatar Jason Smith

      Thanks for sharing, Susan. That’s neat that he found a way to support the troops and not violate his conscience. It’s a complex subject, and I always appreciate hearing the perspective of pacifists who arrived at their position from their Christian convictions.

      Like

Leave a comment