Turning the Other Cheek
Devotions for Growing Christians
Turning the Other Cheek
Matthew 5:38-42 - You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I say unto you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 has always been considered one of the most beautiful and moving portions of Scripture. Well, no wonder - the words were spoken by our Lord Jesus! What a tremendous effect the Church would have on this unbelieving world if we Christians practiced more of the principles given to us in this wonderful sermon.
But how do we practice these principles? Aren’t there some "impossible commandments” in this part of God’s Word? What about Matthew 5:38-42? Does this mean that I must "turn the other cheek" if someone punches me in the face? Can't I defend myself, and "resist him who is evil"? Can't I at least run away to save my "other cheek" from attack?! And what about my shirt and coat (v40)? Does that mean if someone steals things from my car, I should give him my car as well? You've got to be kidding! And going two miles instead of one (v41) - well, I've got to disobey here. People are always manipulating me to do things for them, and if I didn't draw the line I wouldn't even have time to read my Bible! And surely the Lord doesn't expect me to give money to everyone who’s looking for a handout (v42)! I'd be wiped out overnight if I practiced that principle!
Do those questions sound like your thoughts when you’re confronted with these demanding directives from the Lord? It's only natural to think this way. What’s the correct interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount? What is the proper application for today?
The importance of Context
One of the primary rules of biblical interpretation is - we must never try to figure out what a particular verse or passage means without examining the surrounding Scripture. In other words, don't pull a Scripture out of its context!
The context of Matthew 5:38-42 is Matthew 5:17-48. Matthew 5:17-48 is a teaching within the Sermon on the Mount - a teaching given by Jesus on the Old Testament Law of Moses. The pressing questions in the minds of those who heard our Lord’s new teachings would obviously be about the Old Testament laws. These laws were their way of life! Was Jesus setting aside - or even rejecting - the Law of Moses? Was He advocating a radical departure from the God who is revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures?
The Lord squashed those ideas in verses 17-20. He hadn’t come to “abolish the Law or the Prophets” (the Old Testament Scriptures). God's standards of righteousness never change, and neither do his plans as revealed in the Scriptures. And not only that - Jesus Christ had actually come to fulfill or complete the whole scope of the Law and the Prophets. He alone could explain and reveal the true and full meaning of the Scripture. Therefore His interpretation and teaching of the Law of Moses would be the correct view - not the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, who were the self-proclaimed teachers of the Law. Jesus Christ's understanding of the requirements of the Law of Moses was the interpretation that God originally intended.
The fact that the Jewish leaders misunderstood the requirements and intentions of the Law underlies our Lord's statement in verse 20. Their view was far below the divine view. Over the years God’s Law had been twisted, distorted, misinterpreted, misapplied, "watered down" and "added to"! As a result, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were way off target in their ideas of how to follow the Law (Matthew 15:1-3). They were so far off that they gave equal authority to their traditions. Some of them actually thought that they were keeping the righteous requirements of the Law by their outward show of religion.
In order to correct these wrong views, the Lord Jesus selected six areas of the Law of Moses that had been misinterpreted and “expanded” by the years of traditions developed by the religious leaders. These areas are covered in verses 21-48. Murder, adultery, divorce, vows, retaliation and neighbors all needed reinterpretation because of the gross misunderstandings of the Pharisees.
It is significant that the Lord Jesus didn’t begin His comments on these six areas with the words, "It is written..." No! He started with the words, "You have heard that it was said..." (vs21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). In other words, He was correcting the wrong ideas that had built up around that Scripture.
Retaliation
For example, He said, "You have heard it was said, 'You should love your neighbor and hate your enemy." (v43). "Love your neighbor" was certainly part of the Mosaic legislation (Leviticus 19:18), but to "hating your enemy" was certainly not in the Law of Moses. That was part of the faulty oral tradition of the scribes and Pharisees. The Lord went on to correct this misunderstanding by telling them to love their enemies and pray for those who persecuted them (v44). The Lord Jesus was not changing the Law or adding something new to the Law. He was correctly interpreting the Law's requirement to "love your neighbor" - as God had originally intended.
In verses 38-42 the Lord dealt with what had become known as the “lex talionis” - the law of retaliation. The Jewish leaders had taken this area of the Law and twisted it to justify selfish acts of personal vengeance. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was never given by God for personal vengeance and retaliation! Each time this law is mentioned in the Old Testament the context is civil justice - not individual "tit-for-tat." (See Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21.) "Let the punishment fit the crime" was God's directive for civil law and order. The court could not gouge out the eye of a defendant who had merely given someone a black eye. The public magistrate could not pull every tooth out of the man who punched his boss in the mouth! This law was given by God as a civil restrictive measure - not as permission for personal revenge. But over the years this law was increasingly misinterpreted and used to carry on personal vendettas.
Turning the other cheek
The Lord came down hard on the scribes and Pharisees (and on us, too!) at this point. He explained that in the areas of personal relationships we are to "turn the other cheek" and "go the extra mile". How far do we carry the principle of "turning the other cheek" when applying it to our personal relationships today? Certainly to the point of not allowing ourselves to plan and take delight in personal retaliation or revenge! The attitude of "I'll get you back" and "Wait till I get my hands on you" is never an option for the Christian. God promises us that He will take care of these problems in His own way (Romans 12:19).
But what if a thief breaks into my house, beats up my family and cleans out everything of value? Should I "turn the other cheek" and not try to defend myself and my family? Should I "go the extra mile" and show him the $100 hidden on the top closet shelf - and then help him to load up his truck with my furniture? Of course not!
Remember the context of this Scripture! The context is about personal revenge and retaliation, not self-defense when assaulted or attacked, or when civil laws are broken.
In this example, the thief must be brought to justice before the state. The state, under God, is to operate on the principle of "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” In no way did our Lord change that principle of civil law! You can imagine the crime and chaos that would result if our civil courts operated on the principle of "turning the other cheek.” And remember - we are citizens of the state as well as citizens of heaven. It’s our responsibility to see that the thief is brought to justice, and civil law is carried out. We would be irresponsible before the state (as well as encouraging evil) if we were to "just forget about it.”
Giving
What if someone asks for a contribution for himself, or for an unknown “chartable agency,” or an unscriptural religious cult? Here again the context of verse 42 is so important to the proper understanding of the Lord's command. The Lord was not advocating that we should give money indiscriminately to every freeloader who comes along! (See 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.) He was speaking out against the selfish and miserly spirit that was exhibited by the scribes and Pharisees. When confronted with people who were truly in need, they gave grudgingly and reluctantly - if they gave at all. This type of giving should never characterize a Christian! We are follow Jesus by helping all who ask for our assistance - as long as their request is not contrary to Scripture.
So when interpreted properly, the "impossible" commands of Matthew 5:38-42 are possible. But possible doesn’t mean easy! Many times the obedient Christian may be "stepped on" - and yet we are called to "take it," rather than retaliate. When someone takes advantage of us, or insults us, or talks behind our back, or excludes us - we are to "turn the other cheek" and not retaliate.
It may hurt us (v39), cost us (v40), inconvenience us (v41), or exhaust us (v42). And there will always be the borderline cases in which we must make decisions - sometimes very painful decisions. But even in situations that are not strictly "turn the other cheek" cases, remember that mercy has always been God's rule of thumb.
- Dave Reid