Should I Really Turn the Other Cheek? Why? Matthew 5:38-42

Eye for Eye

Jesus continues his diatribe calling out the legalistic Pharisees on a new topic ... "revenge". 

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 

Exodus 21:24 advocated an "eye for an eye" response in matters of civil disobedience, but over time it became a rationalization for personal retribution.  The basic idea was that the punishment should fit the crime. Originally it was intended that the person would get the proper punishment, which was deserved and also served as a deterrent. But over time it morphed to a license for private retaliation and a vindicative response. 

39 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. 

This verse can be challenging to understand, but when we take it in context of the previous verse it makes sense. We can see that instead of retaliating in a more severe manner, we should hit the "pause button". I don't think this means we should never ever resist evil, but "overcome evil with good". Romans 12:21

It is interesting how D.A. Carson NT commentator interprets this passage, 

"It is wrong to think that Jesus means a physical attack cannot be resisted or defended against. When Jesus speaks of a slap on your right cheek, it was culturally understood as a deep insult, not a physical attack. Jesus does not mean that if someone hits across the right side of our head with a baseball bat, we should allow them to then hit the left side. “If a right-handed person strikes someone’s right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand, probably considered more insulting than a slap by the open palm.” (Carson)

Another very important aspect of this verse is to realize that Jesus is primarily talking about personal relationships. I.e. Not the civil government who is in charge of keeping evil in check by punishing wrongdoers. 

40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 

Under the Mosaic law someone's outer cloak could not be taken from them. The Greek infers something a little bit more than "if anyone wants".  The tenor of the word is more "if any one is hell bent on suing you." The "shirt" is also called a "tunic". A man wore it close to his body.  The cloak was worn on the outside and was more expensive compounding the command.  Also, it was forbidden to steal a cloak because it often provided warmth at night.  Therefore, it even more of a concession. 

41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 

This situation is a little different because one is offering to go "the extra mile". This is a deliberate choice one is making, no one is coercing them do it. The historical context was under Roman law a Jewish man might be asked by a Roman soldier to carry his pack for a mile.  It would be in this situation the disciple would say, "Let me carry it one more." 

42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

This final case seems the least forced or compelled. I.e. someone is asking you for something in this case money and you can choose to give or not give.  This kind of gift is probably the greatest because it is a gift freely given. 

But the huge challenge for us is to discern if giving to those who ask of us is a good thing for the person receiving the gift. I.e. giving money to a drug addict  Ellicott gives a great comment on this,

"That which the words really teach as the ideal of the perfect life which we ought to aim at, is the loving and the giving temper that sees in every request made to us the expression of a want of some kind, which we are to consider as a call to thoughtful inquiry how best to meet the want, giving what is asked for if we honestly believe that it is really for the good of him who asks, giving something else if that would seem to be really better for him. Rightly understood, the words do not bid us idly give alms to the idle or the impostor; and St. Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, neither let him eat” (2Thessalonians 3:10), is not a departure from the law of Christ, but its truest application and fulfilment."

Here is the bottom line with what I believe what Jesus is teaching.  In all these cases we may come up with reasons that Jesus' teaching seems irrational or unfair. But we must remember is Jesus often used paradoxes and hyperbole to make a point.  He is saying in these examples, "This is how a person in the world would react in these situations, how will you as my disciple react?"  

As Christ followers I believe we are called to be counter cultural.  Jesus himself did not resist when he was arrested on trumped charges and gave himself over to the authorities.  Though it may seem unjust for us to do something for someone who doesn't deserve it, it reveals the character of God.  After all we deserved judgment for our sin, yet he gave us grace? Why? To show us his nature.  When Christians don't give to people what is coming to them or refuse to exact revenge even when it is justified, we show our character and who it is we follow! Finally, there is a freedom here.  When we don't have to respond in rage or anger it shows we have self control which again reveals whose we are.

Are you a person who looks to retaliate when someone hurts you?  What would it mean for you practically to turn the other cheek when others insult or demean you?  What is the difference between standing up to evil and what Jesus is talking about?  How do you decide whether or not you should give to someone?