Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Seltzer]

How do Christians square supporting the state's use of violence (i.e. military action) with Christ's exhortation to "turn the other cheek?"

[jimwalton]

Jesus is dealing with general moral truths, as we find out in Matthew 5:20 (your righteousness has to surpass that of even hyper-religious persons). God isn't looking for people who are religious, but people who are Godlike: a righteousness not of good works but of holiness.

These verses, then, are one of the examples of incorrect teaching and understanding. The religious people were quoting the Old Testament out of context and wrongfully applying it to an area that God never intended. They were using the words as a justification for retaliation in personal relationships (a self-defense strategy in conflict situations)—a total misunderstanding of the teaching. Jesus' point is that God never intended these words to be about self-defense for an attacked person or a fighting strategy. The words were originally designed for a court of law (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)—fair judgments for what was perpetrated.

Jesus is not talking about attack, but about insult and contempt. He's not talking about the robber cruising the neighborhood or the bully making trouble. These can and should be resisted.

What is Jesus talking about then, that replaces "an eye for an eye"? He is definitely NOT saying that Christians should never defend themselves, nor that the police force should be disbanded. What he is saying is that when you are offended or insulted, brush it off. Don't use it as a launch point for a personal vendetta or a vengeful response. Insult and offense should be let go; injustices should be treated with appropriate legal and judicial response. The robber who cruises the neighborhood should be stopped; the bully must be resisted. There is no suggestion in Jesus' teaching that the law and its penalties are voided. But the backhanded slap should be brushed aside. It's OK to respond with justice, but not with malice. Justice and love side by side.

You see the exact same thing in Paul in Acts 16.37. He knows that what has happened to him and the way he has been treated is illegal. We observe that Paul responded with tact and respect, but also challenged them with firmness and demands, and he presses for justice. He doesn't just roll over like a doormat, but neither does he seek personal revenge or any kind of retaliation.

Jesus never made lists of rules for us to follow. This is no religion, and it's not a list of rules to follow. It's a relationship, and so we follow a person. When we're hurt in personal relationships? If it's an insult, it's a good idea to talk to the other person about it (Mt. 18), to seek redress and reconciliation. We want to do everything possible in love to break down barriers between ourselves and other people. "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." But if it is an insult, ultimately you have to be ready to let it go if it won't resolve, and to turn the other cheek. Don't seek retaliation or harbor bitterness in your heart. Truly let it go, and forgive the other person. But if a true injustice has been done, it is within our range of responses, based on what we see in Christ, to address the injustice and take appropriate, tactful, respectful steps to bring just resolution. These actions may appropriately be institutional, managerial, legal, or interpersonal as the situation warrants. But as Ephesians 4.26 teaches us "in your anger, do not sin," so also in your pursuit of justice, do not sin. You walk a knife-edge of seeking truth and justice while keeping pride, judging, and vengeance out of the mix.

There are, of course, other Scriptural illustrations and example consistent with the same principle:

- Daniel, in Dan. 1, not turning the other cheek to Nebuchadnezzar, the authority over him
- Esther, in Esther 5
- Peter & John, in Acts 5.29

One more question, though, is that of self-defense. Is it a Biblical, or a Christ-like, response to self-defend? Absolutely yes. Nehemiah is a shining example of that, as he worked with a brick in one hand and a sword in the other, depending on God, but also actively self-defending, protecting himself and his people. Abraham, also, in Gn. 14, taking up arms and rescuing Lot from the thugs who had attacked and captured them. He chooses military action to defend and possess that which was rightfully his, and is blessed by Melchizedek and God following his action.

But remember, we live by a relationship with Jesus, not by a list of rules. The choice to self-defend must be a choice of conscience, discernment, and wisdom. A believer is not required to self-defend, and may at their choosing decide to "turn the other cheek" even when other action may be both warranted and possible. A believer may also choose to self-defend. It has to be a matter of love and conscience, not a whole lot different from the principles of rights and conscience laid out for us in Romans 14. Situations and people are different. We must make the best wise and godly choice we can, and not judge others when their decision might be different than ours. Each of us must live by the faith we have been given.

Violence is an expression of sin, and it violates the human being who is its victim. It will always be with us. In recent movies such as Gangster Squad, IronMan 3, and even The Dark Knight (2008), it point is that the good guys have to become as evil as the bad guys to counter evil. Jesus would say that's not so, and that's what his saying in Mt. 5.39 is about. There is certainly a place for self-defense, a police force, and a moral military. Os Guinness says, "Provided that there is a legitimate basis for its use and a vigilant precaution against its overreaction in practice, a qualified use of force is not only necessary, but justifiable. Within the Christian framework there is the possibility of truth, justice and authority, and force, used in a godly way, is a controlling discipline of truth, justice, and authority in action."