Turn the Other Cheek?
- Scriptures: Matthew 5:38-42; Luke 22:36-38; Exod. 22:2
- The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State
Transcript
Kerry Duke: Hi, I’m Kerry Duke, host of My God and My Neighbor podcast from Tennessee Bible College, where we see the Bible as not just another book, but the Book. Join us in a study of the inspired Word to strengthen your faith and to share what you’ve learned with others.
In this study of the Sermon on the Mount, we’ve already seen that this is one of the most misquoted sections in all the Bible. People misapply and they misquote what Jesus said. They apply some of His statements to situations that Jesus never intended for them to be applied to. And that’s certainly true of what we’re going to look at today.
We’re going to be talking about the subject of self defense. Did Jesus teach that we have the right to defend ourselves? So let’s look at Matthew chapter 5 verses 38 through 42.
And this begins where Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you” (or strikes you) “on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him too. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away.”
Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Those are the words that are oftentimes misapplied. But we also find, as we’ll see later today, that He told the disciples to buy a sword if they didn’t have one. So how do we harmonize those two statements? Turn the other cheek and yet buy a sword. What did Jesus teach about self-defense?
Is it right for Christians to carry and to use a deadly weapon? The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is, the government is not to forbid citizens of the United States to have weapons of deadly force. Is that constitutional right consistent with the life and the teaching of the Prince of Peace?
There are some key principles that will help us to understand what Jesus is talking about and what He is not talking about when He says to turn the other cheek. The first one, and perhaps the most important one, is the context of Matthew chapter 5. In this section, Jesus is contrasting what God actually intended with what the scribes and the Pharisees said about the Old Testament.
That’s very important to remember. So we’ve seen the example of murder and how that the scribes and Pharisees taught against murder but they didn’t teach against hate. We’ve looked at the example that Jesus gave about adultery because the scribes and Pharisees taught against it. And yet they did not teach against lust.
They perverted what the Bible said in the Old Testament about divorce. They twisted what the Bible said in the Old Testament about making promises or making vows. Now this brings us down to Matthew chapter 5 verse 38. Jesus said that “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’”
That was in the Old Testament. The scribes and Pharisees didn’t misquote that. You’ll find that taught in Exodus 21:24 and Leviticus 24:20. There was nothing wrong with that law. It simply said to the Jews: if you wrong someone, you should get the same treatment in return even to the point of having your life taken if you kill somebody else.
It was a law about justice. The problem was, the scribes and the Pharisees took it to an extreme just like they did these other passages. They were so set on getting justice that they ignored what the Old Testament said about mercy, justice has a place. But so does mercy. The Old Testament taught both, but the Jews kept one and they discarded the other. So just as in all the other examples before this one in Matthew chapter 5, Jesus is not saying He’s against justice. He’s teaching that mercy is just as important.
The second principle to keep in mind is the historical setting. I’m talking about the history of the Jews in Jesus’ day. Have you ever noticed how many times Jesus talks about the lack of mercy and the importance of mercy among these Jews in the book of Matthew? And remember, the book of Matthew was written especially for the Jewish mindset. If you get a concordance and look up the word “mercy” in the New Testament or the word merciful or unmerciful, you’ll be amazed at how many times those words occur in the book of Matthew. Remember Matthew chapter 5 verse 7: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”
The Jews really needed to hear that. In Matthew chapter 9 verse 13 and Matthew 12 verse 7 Jesus quoted Hosea chapter six verse six. That’s where God said, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” So He quoted that passage two times to these hard-hearted Jewish leaders. Later in the book of Matthew in Matthew chapter 23, verse 23, Jesus said that Pharisees had neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith (Matthew 23, verse 23).
So we have to remember the mindset of these Jews that Jesus is talking to and about. They were selfish and they were oftentimes vindictive with each other. They condemned each other over the smallest things. You’ll read about that, of course, in Matthew 7, verses 1 through 5, where Jesus talks about the mote and the beam.
The Lord said in Matthew chapter 23, verse 14, that the scribes and Pharisees, instead of being merciful to widows, devoured their houses. The rabbis even invented a tradition called Corban which said that Jews didn’t have to help their needy parents if they dedicated the money to the temple (Mark chapter 7 verses 1 through 13).
And if anybody wronged them or owed them in the least way, intentionally or unintentionally, they demanded justice to the fullest extent of the law. And Jesus gave, again, in the book of Matthew, a long story about an unmerciful servant in Matthew chapter 18, 23 through 35. So if you ask a Jew in Jesus day why they acted like this, that Jew would probably just say, “Well, don’t you know that the Bible says ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’?”
So how did Jesus deal with a heart problem like this? Well, He couldn’t just gently urge them to show compassion toward others. He had to be severe with these people. They had gone to an extreme, and Jesus had to use severe language to pull them back to center.
And that’s why Jesus used what is called a hyperbole. That’s a figure of speech which is a deliberate or intentional exaggeration for emphasis. Now this is common in the Sermon on the Mount. Just a few verses earlier, remember what Jesus said? He said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out…And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off” (Matthew 5:30). Now, does anyone think that Jesus is saying that we are to literally pluck out our physical eye or that we’re to literally cut off our physical hand? Now, remember, that is just before Jesus talks about turning the other cheek. If somebody strikes you on your right cheek, He said, turn the other also.
If we look at Matthew 5, 28 and 29 and say, “Well, those are figures, those are symbols,” then we need to remember that about some other things that Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. For instance, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus talks about hypocrites sounding a trumpet. He says that we’re not to let our left hand know what our right hand is doing (Matthew 6 verses 2 and 3). Those are figures. Those are symbols. In Matthew chapter 7 verse 5, He talks about a hypocrite with a beam of wood in his eyes. Now, if all these verses are figures, then it shouldn’t be strange that turning the other cheek is also a figure of speech, that is, it is a hyperbole.
Jesus himself didn’t literally turn the other cheek when He was before the high priest in John chapter 18. One of the officers struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, but Jesus reproved him. He said, if I’ve spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why do you strike me?” (John 18 verse 23). Now, it’s true that Jesus didn’t retaliate physically. That would have hardly been possible anyway because He was arrested. But He did resist. He didn’t invite the officer to strike him again. He didn’t say, “Okay, you’ve hit Me on one side. Go ahead and hit the other one.” So, Jesus is not speaking literally about any kind of situation in Matthew chapter 5 when he says to turn the other cheek.
Now, remember, in the text that we started with that Jesus also said these words, “If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away.” That’s Matthew 5, 40 42.
These statements, again, cannot be literal, universal, unqualified commands with no exception whatsoever. For instance, Jesus said to give to one who asks. Now, does that mean that a poor man is to take food from his children and give it to a man who is too lazy to work just because he asks? Paul said that a man who won’t work shouldn’t eat (2 Thessalonians chapter 3 verse 10).
We have to look at the spirit of these statements and not press the application beyond the context of this Jewish audience. Jesus is not giving a new interpretation or a radical application of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He’s just stating the meaning in a different, in a more poetic way. What Jesus says in these verses does not contradict and it does not supersede the Old Testament law. It simply qualifies it. Jesus put this teaching in its proper realm of application because the Pharisees had over applied it.
You may say, “Well, what about the next verses though?” Because in Matthew chapter 5 verse 43, He says, “You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” We’ll talk about that more when we get to those verses.” But I do want to say just a few words about that. Jesus said in verse 43, “You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” That’s Matthew 5, 43 through 44. Now, how does that relate to the issue of a Christian and self-defense? The question that is oftentimes raised is, “Well, how can you love your enemy and use force, even deadly force, against him?”
Now again, we have to make sure that we understand what Jesus said and what He did not say. In verse 43 he said, “You have heard that it was said…” Who taught them? From whom did they hear this? The answer is: from these popular teachers of the Jews in Jesus day, the scribes and the Pharisees. This all goes back again to Matthew 5:20.
Jesus gave five examples of their teaching before this one in Matthew chapter 5, verse 43. And in every case, they twisted the scriptures. They quoted part of what God said and they left out the parts that they didn’t want to do. Now, verse 43 is no different. The scribes cited Leviticus 19, verse 18. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
That part was good. They were right in quoting those words, but then they added these words: hate your enemy. That was not in the Old Testament. The law of Moses did not command the Jews to hate their enemies. In fact, in Exodus chapter 23 verses 4 and 5, Moses said, “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it.” Solomon wrote, “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat. And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. So you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the Lord will reward you.” That’s Proverbs 25:21-22.
So the Old Testament law said to help your enemy, not hate him. The Pharisees twisted what the Scriptures taught on this. They taught Jews to love their fellow Jews, but hate Gentiles. The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself was clear, but they looked for ways to circumvent that law.
Do you remember the lawyer that Jesus was talking to just before he gave the story of the Good Samaritan? The Bible says that this lawyer quoted these very words, “Love your neighbors yourself,” and yet the Bible says in Luke chapter 10, verse 29: “wanting to justify himself, he said to Jesus, and who is my neighbor?”
They were constantly trying to twist the word of God. When Jesus said, “But I say to you,” He’s not denying what the law said. He’s objecting to what the scribes and Pharisees taught. They taught it wrong. They said to hate your enemy. Now, the important thing to remember is what kind of enemy Jesus is talking about.
He says this enemy is one who might curse you not kill you. This is a person who hates you, not someone who is trying to physically harm you. This enemy wants to spitefully use you, not someone who’s threatening your life. This is also someone who persecutes you. Now that can’t be persecution to the point of death, because in that case you’d be dead already, and you wouldn’t be able to pray for this person like Jesus says.
These are attacks on the character of a Christian, not the life and safety of a Christian. These are personal attacks, not physical injuries. When Jesus said to love your enemy, He cannot mean love in the sense of warm feelings like the affection that you have towards your children. He can’t mean to love your enemy in the same way that a husband and wife love each other.
This is love in doing rather than feeling. It’s love as a decision, a love of the will more than love as devotion. It’s love from the will rather than love from emotion. In that sense, we pray for, and we do good to our enemies, but this has nothing to do with someone who intends to do us physical harm. In other words, when Jesus said to bless this enemy, He’s not talking about a violent criminal who’s about to rape and kill women and children. He’s not telling a woman to say, “God bless you” to an animal like that. Foy E. Wallace Jr. was right when he said in his book, “The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State” that the Sermon on the Mount is not a bill of rights for criminals.
Now, let’s look outside the Sermon on the Mount to see what we can learn about Jesus’ view of using physical force.
We need to look at the overall context of Jesus life and his teaching, not just at one passage. In John chapter 2, the Bible says, “Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple with a sheep and the oxen and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.”
That’s John 2, 13 through 15. Now, Jesus did this amazingly a second time three years later in Matthew chapter 21 verse 12. The Bible doesn’t specifically say that Jesus struck these men with the whip that he made. It doesn’t even specifically say that He used it to hit the sheep and the oxen, but it would seemed strange that He would take the time to make a whip with no thought of using it. And it would seem reasonable to say that if He had the right to wield this whip, then He had the right to use it. And the record still says that He turned over their tables and drove them out. He didn’t ask them to leave. He didn’t reason with them or try to debate with them. He drove them out against their will. Regardless of the extent of the coercion that He used on this occasion, this story shows that Jesus was not the completely passive, nonresistant Savior that some people think they see in the Sermon on the Mount.
But there is a more direct passage. Do you realize that Jesus told the disciples to carry a sword? Here’s the record in Luke 22. “And he said to them, ‘When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?’ So they said, ‘Nothing.’ Then he said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack. And he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.’” That’s Luke 22, 35 through 38.
Now when He says in verse 35 that He had sent them out earlier without a money bag and other supplies, He was talking about the limited commission in Luke 10 and Matthew 10. But this time, they will need extra money for food. They will need to pack supplies in a knapsack.
And they will need protection. Now that’s why Jesus said if you don’t have a sword, sell your garment and buy one. In the limited commission before this, Jesus told them not even to take a staff. In Bible times, a staff had different uses, one of which was self-defense against animals or humans.
But this time Jesus didn’t just tell them to take a staff for general purposes. He told them to buy a sword. Now, consider what this meant in the first century. Jesus could have told them to take a staff, but He was more specific. He said to take a sword. Today, a sword is just a relic of ancient history. It’s just an item displayed in a museum many times.
But everyone in Jesus’ day understood what it represented. They knew that swords were meant for killing. They were not made simply to maim or to wound people, and they certainly weren’t made just to clear brush or cut down small trees. A sword was the symbol of the power to take human life. For instance, Paul said that civil government bears the sword (Romans 13 verse 4).
That doesn’t just mean that Roman soldiers wore a sword at their side for show. It means they carried it for a purpose and they stood ready to use it. Owning a sword was so important that Jesus said to sell your garment and buy one. People then didn’t have as many clothes as most of us have today. Now this shows how urgent this was for his disciples.
Jesus is talking about the disciples going out after He ascended to heaven and after the church was established. They were to go into all the world under the Great Commission (Mark 16 verse 15). They would face dangers in their travels. Paul said later that he faced perils of robbers in his journeys in II Corinthians chapter 11. The story of the Good Samaritan talks about thieves beating a man half to death (Luke chapter 10 verse 30). The old world was dangerous in some places, just like our world is today. So the disciples would need protection. Jesus said if you don’t have a sword, buy one even if you have to sell some of your clothes.
Buying a sword in Jesus’ day was the same thing as saying today to buy a gun. Both are made for self-protection, even to the point of taking an attacker’s life. This is clear proof that Jesus did not teach absolute nonresistance in the Sermon on the Mount.
Some commentaries say that Jesus was speaking figuratively about these swords. In other words, these commentaries say that when Jesus said to buy a sword, He’s not talking about a literal, physical sword. He’s using that as a symbol. And what I would ask is: well, what does that mean? If Jesus was not talking about literal swords, then what does He mean when He says to buy one? What would the sword symbolize? Some would say that Jesus was using the sword symbolically, like Paul was when he said in Ephesians 6 verse 17 that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God.
Well, if that’s true, then why did Jesus say it’s “enough” when they showed Him two literal swords? Besides, everything in this record points to literal swords. Jesus told the disciples to take a money bag. Was that symbolic or was it literal? He said to take a knapsack. Was that literal or symbolic? Then he said to buy a sword. The disciples said that they had two swords and they were holding literal physical swords. So if the money bag and the knapsack are literal, then so is the sword.
But why would Jesus tell all of the twelve apostles to buy a sword, and then say that the two swords they had were enough? Well, consider what Jesus said about taking a money bag. Before this time, Judas Iscariot carried the money bag for the other disciples (John 12 verse 6 and John 13 verse 29). That was enough for the time being. But after Jesus death, each one of them would need to carry his own money bag. In the same way, Jesus is saying the two swords are enough for now until the disciples could buy more later. At the time He spoke, the two swords they had would serve the purpose They certainly couldn’t go out and sell their garment anyway and buy a sword at this time of the night.
The fact that the disciples had these two swords is very interesting. Jesus already knew that these disciples had those two swords. He permitted them to carry those swords. He’s not telling them to do something new in Luke chapter 22. He certainly didn’t tell them to throw away those swords. He told them to buy more swords.
One of the disciples who already carried a sword was Peter, of course. So when the Jewish crowd came to the garden with clubs and swords to arrest Jesus, Peter pulled out his own sword and he struck the ear of one of them.
Jesus told him, “You put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26, verse 52”. This cannot mean that Jesus is telling Peter that any and all uses of the sword are wrong. It wouldn’t make any sense for Jesus to urge the disciples shortly before this to buy a sword and then tell them to never use it.
He didn’t tell Peter to throw away his sword. He told him to put it in its place. There is a time and a place for using the sword. This was not it. Jesus came to give His life willingly for the sins of the world. So we commend Peter for his courage. He was no coward, but two swords were no match for a huge crowd like this. And, more importantly, Jesus said the Scriptures had to be fulfilled (Matthew 26 verse 54 and 56).
So what did Jesus mean when He said, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword?” He means taking the sword rashly and as a rule of life. The sword has its place in just punishment and protection, whether in national interest or in personal life. But using a sword as a way of life can only lead to one end.
Jesus, the sinless, loving Savior, told the disciples to purchase a deadly weapon. That deadly weapon was a sword. Guns weren’t invented for more than a thousand years later. But guns are not the only aspect of the issue of Christian self-defense. It could be a stick, it could be a rock, or even a hand or a foot that can injure or kill another person. So, if Jesus teaches absolute nonresistance in the Sermon on the Mount, that would mean that a woman couldn’t even kick an attacker on the shin.
Jesus authorized individuals to use self-defense. He and Moses in the Old Testament agree on this point. For instance, consider what Moses said in Exodus chapter 22, verse 2. “If the thief is found breaking in,” that is breaking into a house, and “he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.” In other words, no one will be punished for killing him as he broke in. Now the situation was as common then as it is today. An intruder breaks into a house at night with people inside.
This law plainly gave Jews the right to defend themselves, even to the point of taking the life of the attacker. This is a clear passage on self defense in the Old Testament. And that same law was careful to distinguish killing in self-defense from killing in cold blood. Earlier, in Exodus chapter 21, verse 12, Moses wrote, ‘He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.’ Now that was premeditated killing. But in Exodus chapter 22, we have a situation of self-defense. At night, the owner couldn’t see who the thief was. He couldn’t know if the thief had a weapon. He might not know if the thief was coming toward him to attack him or trying to get away. So the law gave leniency to the side of the victim of the crime. If there was a real possibility that the intruder might harm those inside the house, then the owner was justified in using force to defend his family, even if that meant killing the intruder. Now that’s the teaching of the Law of Moses in the book of Exodus, chapter 22, verse 2.
Someone might object and say, “But that’s in the Old Testament. We’re not under that law today. We’re under the law of Christ.” The problem with that reasoning is that not everything in the law of Moses was a temporary law for the Jews only. For instance, specific religious observances like the Sabbath and circumcision and the Passover were nailed to the cross (Colossians 2 verse 14). But the basic moral principles are the same. Murder was wrong in the Old Testament. It’s wrong in the New Testament. So are lying, adultery, and stealing. The right of self-defense is no different. Moses and Jesus both taught self-defense. They’re in agreement on that point, not at odds with each other.
There’s a similar verse in the New Testament about breaking and entering. It’s in Matthew chapter 24 verse 43 where Jesus said, “But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into.” Jesus said this man would not allow the thief to break into his house, which means he had to use force.
Does this verse prove the right of self defense? This is an illustration. And when an illustration is used, we need to look for the overall point of the illustration, not every detail in it. Jesus is teaching in this context for us to be ready for his coming. That’s what he says in the next verse, verse 44.
Consider the other side of this figure. Paul and Peter both said that Jesus will come like a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5 verse 2 and 2 Peter chapter 3 verse 10). Now those verses obviously don’t approve of what a thief does. It’s the overall idea of surprise that’s the purpose of the illustration.
And for that reason, an argument from Matthew chapter 24 verse 43 is probably not a good verse to support self-defense. At least we can say that the other passages that we looked at are more clear about this.
Another aspect of this issue is the question of moral duty. Do we have a moral obligation to protect human life? Jesus asked the critical Jews in the synagogue, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life, or to kill?” (Mark chapter three, verse four). Jesus taught that saving human life is a good thing. Paul warned in first Timothy chapter five, verse eight, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” A man ought to provide food and clothing for his family. He has a moral duty to shelter them from bad weather, and he has the responsibility to protect them.
For instance, if a bear is about to attack his wife and children, a man ought to do whatever he can to protect them. And protecting our loved ones and other people as well from vicious criminals is really no different. How could anyone think that the Sermon on the Mount forbids us to interfere with a rapist or a murderer? It’s not wrong to protect others from such evil. It’s wrong if we don’t.
So this study today has not been a look at the interpretation of the Constitution or the application of specific laws concerning self-defense. We’ve been looking at the moral aspect of this issue. From a moral point of view, the question we’re looking at is not specifically or uniquely a Second Amendment issue. It is a Biblical issue. We shouldn’t interpret the Sermon on the Mount in light of the Second Amendment. We should read the Second Amendment in light of the Sermon on the Mount.
The Second Amendment does not settle this issue from a moral point of view. How could the human law of one nation, written almost 1,800 years after Jesus, have any power to decide the moral aspect of this issue? Do we have a legal right to carry a gun? Yes. But as Christians, we do not. We have to ask a deeper question. Do we have the moral right, the biblical right, the divine permission to bear arms and defend ourselves? Yes, we do. The Scriptures we’ve examined show this. The Second Amendment didn’t give us the right to bear arms. It merely affirms that right. The Lord is the one who gave us that right.
Thank you for listening to My God and My Neighbor. Stay connected with our podcast on our website and on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever fine podcasts are distributed. Tennessee Bible College, providing Christian education since 1975 in Cookeville, Tennessee, offers undergraduate and graduate programs.
Study at your level. Aim higher and get in touch with us today.