Turn the other cheek doesn’t mean never fight (6 reasons why)
Turn the other cheek. It’s one of the most well-known sayings of Jesus. Just about everyone has heard it; just about everyone has used it. But do we really understand what it means?
It definitely shocked Jesus’ hearers. They lived in a war-weary land that was plagued by violence. In the last century alone, they’d suffered under the rule of a cruel tyrant, been ravaged by a civil war, been the pawns in another war between Herod the Great and the rival Parthian Empire to the east, and now were subject to the yoke of the Roman Empire, which taxed them heavily and thought little of abusing this insignificant, exclusivistic people in a corner of the empire. Understandably, many people were angry. Many people wanted to fight back, whether against the Romans or even their own countrymen who cooperated with them. Occasionally inspiring figures would stir up a revolt, which would quickly be crushed by the Romans, and the rest of their countrymen would pay the price.
So it was in this setting that Jesus said, “If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.” In an age where the masses were yearning for a violent revolt that would drive out the Romans and give the Jews the promised land they’d longed for under a righteous king, Jesus preached that God’s coming kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, its territory was people’s hearts, and the real war was in the spiritual realm, not on an earthly battlefield. Things were changing. The struggle for the territory of Israel was over; it didn’t matter anymore.
So what does that mean for us? We tend to picture Jesus as a meek, mild-mannered, wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly guy. He was completely about love and peace, and would never condone violence. Some people have gone so far as to say that all war is wrong, owning guns is wrong, fighting back against bullies is wrong. Because Jesus wouldn’t do that, right? Who could imagine Jesus injuring or killing someone fighting?
Is Jesus against all violence? Is he saying we’re supposed to allow other people to insult us, or even attack and injure, even kill, us and our families? It has to be admitted that in the accounts of Jesus and the apostles, there’s no indication that, despite the frequent persecutions they endured, they ever fought to defend themselves. The most Paul ever did was calmly appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen.
Some people might make a distinction here between two kinds of violence. There is interpersonal violence, when you personally are in a conflict with another individual for personal reasons. And there is institutional violence, where an institution such as a government uses violence to carry out its interests, such as in warfare or domestic policing. Some might say one is okay, but not the other. In one case you oppose an individual, in another you act as an agent of an institution opposing agents of entities hostile to that institution. I think the distinction is blurry and possibly irrelevant once it comes down to whether one man can kill or injure another man, whether on a battlefield or in the streets. Nevertheless, I think the Scripture addresses both.
Here are six observations from the Bible that I think point to what Jesus meant by “turn the other cheek,” first, three relating to institutional violence, and then three to interpersonal violence:
War is not inherently wrong. We know this because there were circumstances in which God commanded his people to go to war. The Old Testament is filled with accounts of war, where the Israelites were acting as agents of God’s judgment on evil people groups. But they also fought numerous wars that God did not specifically command, to defend and expand their territory, and acquire resources. One of these wars includes David’s victory over Goliath, clearly brought about by God, so it seems God endorsed some wars he did not command. You could argue this was under the old covenant which is no longer in effect, but this demonstrates that there is nothing about government agents fighting against agents of another government that’s inherently evil. Unless we can find convincing evidence that the New Testament changes this and forbids all war, then it must be permissible under at least some circumstances.
Paul spoke approvingly of the government using the sword to punish evildoers. Romans 13 tells us to obey the earthly governments we serve under, because the governments are agents to punish the wicked and reward the good. He notes that “[the ruler] does not bear the sword in vain” (v. 4). The mention of a sword is very telling, because a sword is a weapon. The reason swords existed were to injure and kill people. It’s pretty unambiguous here: Paul is speaking approvingly of the government using violence, if necessary — not at its arbitrary discretion, but only to enforce laws that punish and prevent evil. Hence, Christians serving in the government can, if it’s the only means to stop an evil act, also use violence as servants of the government.
Sometimes there’s no other means to protect the defenseless. The Bible is full of commands to help the oppressed and weak and defenseless, and part of that includes commands to “defend” them (e.g. Isaiah 1:17, Psalm 82:3). While those two verses carry a courtroom-justice connotation, it seems ludicrous to think that if civil penalties don’t stop an oppressor, or when the situation requires more immediate action, we shouldn’t escalate our methods to what’s necessary. A police officer who in the spirit of Romans 13:4 physically intervenes to stop an attacker from injuring or killing someone is doing exactly that: protecting the defenseless. And if the intervener happens to be someone without a badge, he’s doing the same thing. In fact, we would say that failure to defend a victim when we can do so is an act of cowardice, and cowards don’t exactly receive God’s ringing approval (Revelation 21:8).
But what about interpersonal violence? If we don’t happen to be carrying out a government function, are we supposed to let people oppress and victimize us as they please? This is a trickier question, because on the surface, it seems that’s exactly what Jesus did. He allowed people to abuse him and torture him. He did flee from persecution, but he never fought back, and we are exhorted to follow his example (cf. 1 Peter 2:18-25). But here’s three things to keep in mind:
Turn the other cheek refers to an insulting slap, not a serious attempt to do harm. Matthew makes this clear when he points out that Jesus said, “If someone slaps you on your right cheek…” It was assumed that the typical person was right-handed, so this would mean a backhanded slap. Nobody backhand-slaps somebody if they actually want to hurt them. Back then, and probably today as well, it’s an indication of contempt and scorn.
Self-defense is not inherently wrong. Exodus 22:2-3 presents a scenario where a thief breaks into someone’s house at night. The homeowner, since it’s nighttime, probably can’t determine whether the thief is armed or intends to do him harm, has a reasonable suspicion that the thief intends to do him or his family harm, and kills him. In that case, the homeowner is not guilty of any crime. Again, this is Old Testament, so it’s not necessarily a model for civil law today. But it demonstrates that the act of someone protecting their household from a robber or killer, even if it means killing the assailant, does not automatically incur God’s disapproval. Also, unlike Israel’s wars, this principle really has nothing to do with the old covenant. It has nothing to do with ceremonial or ritual law, or with Israel possessing the land. It’s hard to see why it would be repealed under the new covenant.
The Sermon on the Mount is full of hyperbole. Jesus liked to speak in hyperbole to shock his hearers and get their attention so he could make his point clear, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where the turn the other cheek instruction comes from (Matthew 5:39). If we interpret everything in that sermon literally as Jesus says it, then we must also give our life savings to anyone who asks for them (5:42), always pay out when we’re sued, even more than we’re being sued for (5:40), gouge out our eyes if we lust (5:30), make sure no one else can see us when we pray (Matt 6:6), and sever our corpus callosum before we give anything (6:3). I don’t think anyone would advocate any of these things, so we wouldn’t be wise to assume there’s no nuance to “turn the other cheek” either.
So here we are, with a Savior who suffered and died a humiliating death to save us. We are told to follow in his footsteps by suffering ourselves. But he is also the God who defends the powerless and commands his people to do the same. He also upholds wisdom and courage as virtues.
We should remember why Jesus suffered as he did: It was to save us. It was because that’s how it had to be. His followers suffered, too, because that’s what Jesus called them to do. Their suffering had a purpose, though: to advance the gospel. They didn’t just submit themselves to suffering and become doormats. Their foremost concern was following in Jesus’ footsteps and proclaiming his message to as many people as possible. So maybe the question we should ask is, what will get the message of Jesus out to others?
For the apostles, and for Christians in the modern day, willingly enduring suffering speaks that message loudly. It has a profound effect on people when they see how Christians are able to nobly endure suffering for their Savior. We have tons of stories, both ancient and modern, about how even persecutors and haters of Christians have come to Christ after seeing how faithfully Christians have endured suffering. That is the Christ-like thing to do (because Christ suffered), the wise thing to do (because we become known for enduring suffering for Christ rather than fighting in his name), and the courageous thing to do (endure hardship for Jesus rather than give up).
On the other hand, when we’re talking about, say, a 7-year-old who gets beaten up at school every day because he’s short, turning the other cheek sends a different kind of message: that Christians ought to be doormats. Someone who refuses to use violence, even when it’s the only way he can protect the innocent from needless harm, sends the message that Christians should be cowards. A soldier who refuses to fight an enemy threatening his homeland sends the message that Christians should be traitors. That is not what the gospel is about. Those are not the insults of a petty slap, nor is it any special kind of suffering for Christ. God doesn’t want us to sit back and wait for him to miraculously intervene all the time, and he doesn’t want us to just passively absorb all the evil we experience without trying to do something about it. In cases like those, I believe fighting is the wise thing to do, and the courageous thing to do — qualities which imitate our Savior.
