This post is part of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:38-42. It’s about a generous heart, surrendered to the Father. What does ‘turn the other cheek’ mean in its context?
Don’t over-apply the basic principle with rigid literalness.
The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click on this link:
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
I. Scripture
A. Matthew 5:38-42
38 You have heard that it has been said, “Eye for eye” and “tooth for tooth.” [Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21] 39 But I tell you not to resist evil; instead, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And to the one wanting to draw you into court and take your shirt, give up your cloak to him also. 41 And whoever compels you into service one mile, go with him two. 42 To the one asking, give; and don’t turn away from the one wanting to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)
B. Comments
Fifth Antithesis: “You have heard it said … but I tell you.” See v. 20 for more comments. As noted, the antitheses are the intensification of some elements of the Torah (Osborne, p. 189).
Recall Jeremiah 31:33. In the New Covenant, Jesus is going right to the heart, which is better than the Sinai Covenant.
1.. Verse 38:
Here are two background verses from the OT:
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. (Lev. 24:19-20, ESV; cf. Exod. 21:24; Deut. 19:21)
The goal in these verses is to implement justice in the law courts, not to settle the score in private vendettas. The principle is like-for-like recompense or equality of outcome. After all, how can anyone implement “fracture for fracture” literally and physically and accurately? It cannot be done. The verses are not to be taken literally; they are merely hypothetical and illustrate a principle. Therefore, the entire context of this pericope or section (vv. 38-42) are hypothetical scenarios designed to prove one principle: the surrendered life. Do you own your life, or does God own it? Do your possession possess you, or does God own your possessions?
Revenge in the Old and New Testaments: Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth
Jesus practiced what he preached, when he was (falsely) convicted of blasphemy, and those around him slapped him—in the context of a trial (Matt. 26:68). This courtroom context is probably what Jesus has in mind in this verse, as well.
2. Verse 39:
“A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (“tooth for tooth” was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30 …). … Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient Near East societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations” (Keener, pp. 197-98)
This kind of evil comes from someone who drags you into court and unevenly attempts to take from you what belongs to you; the setting is a lawsuit. What do you do? Allow the case to go on and on, or give him what he wants? How tightly do you hold on to your possessions and rights?
Further, what do you do when he ritually slaps you on the right cheek. If the unjust man is right-handed, then he used his backhand, indicating the ritual humiliation. Why not turn to him the other? This society was based on honor and shame. God honors the kingdom citizen; the citizen does not get his honor from humans. Does the kingdom citizen trust God enough that when people shame him, he believes God will reward him? What does the kingdom citizen care about any of it? He should just move on with his life, after the evil episode is over.
What Does ‘Turn the Other Cheek’ Mean?
What happens when Paul has to confront believers suing each other? He writes:
4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! (1 Cor. 6:5-8, ESV)
This passage is very similar to what Jesus says here. Why not just defer to one another? Why keep such a tight grip on your possessions that you drag a Christian brother—a kingdom citizen—into a pagan Corinthian court? In v. 5, Paul recommends that the two brothers at legal odds with each other find a wise man in the church to settle the case. (This is the source of Christian arbitration in America.) I really believe that Paul caught on to what Jesus is saying here in Matt. 5:38-42. I really believe the risen Jesus was directing Paul to counsel the church to go in this direction.
Should the government turn the other cheek? The short answer: no. For more information, see my post:
Should the State ‘Turn the Other Cheek’?
In his comments on 5:38-39a, Turner writes: “Jesus’s teaching transcends a biblical regulation that arose as a concession to the hardness of the human heart. Yet Jesus’s transcendent teaching is not totally unanticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament] (cf. Lev. 19:18; Deut. 32:35; Prov. 20:22; 24:29; 25:21-22; Isa. 50:6; Lam. 3:30)”
Blomberg adds this caution in interpreting “turn the other cheek”:
Striking a person on the right cheek suggests a backhanded slap from a typically right-handed aggressor and was a characteristic Jewish form of insult. Jesus tells us not to trade such insults even if it means receiving more. In no sense does v. 39 require Christians to subject themselves or others to physical danger or abuse, nor does it bear directly on the pacifism-just war debate. Verse 40 is clearly limited to a legal context. (comment on 5:48-42)
3. Verse 40:
Kingdom citizens are to keep such a loose grip on their lives that they are willing to hand over or “release” (as the Greek says) their paltry possessions to stop the madness. Again, Jesus is deploying the rhetorical strategy of hyperbole, which is “extravagant exaggeration” (Webster’s). If the inner garment and the outer garment were taken, then the man would be naked, and nudity was bad in Jewish society. This hypothetical scenario simply illustrates the surrendered life and the kingdom citizen’s trust in God to honor him and provide.
I know of a woman, an apartment manager, born in Mexico and had married young, whose ex-husband used to telephone her incessantly, because he wanted her to sign a release form, so that she would let him off the hook from paying child support. She had such a loose grip on her demand that he pay it, she signed the form. No more harassment from him. Relief. Why did she do this? God had prospered her, so she could support their children on her own. Why should she demand something he did not want to give to her, though he owed it justly? Why let the process go on and on? God supplied her with not only with an inner garment, but with an outer one too (so to speak)!
This is the spirit of the context of this verse and the next two. Be willing to give up your old life and your old possessions, and watch where God leads you and supplies a new and better life for you in his kingdom. As noted, also, Jesus is deploying the strategy of hyperbole, to shock the kingdom citizen into action. The kingdom subject must be ready to do what God tells him.
“This passage is a graphic image, but if pressed literally, it implies that disciples should never take anyone to court. This may be hyperbole, but again it challenges disciples to value the kingdom above anything the world can take from them” (Keener, p. 199).
4. Verse 41:
Roman law says that a soldier could compel someone to carry his supplies or to do labor, as a porter. Doing this for a friend is remarkable, but doing so for an enemy is unheard of. We have to be willing to renounce our rights when called upon. This verse is about a Roman soldier compelling you to carry his belongings. A Roman mile is 4854 feet or 1.47 kilometers. Your life is so surrendered to God that you are willing to go with him two Roman miles. The context is the kingdom. As a free citizen of a country, I can have basic rights, but if necessary and for the advancement of the kingdom, I may have to give up a right if the Spirit leads.
5. Verse 42:
This verse repeats the same principle of living a surrendered life by additional specific examples that may or may not happen actually and literally. If someone asks from you, go for it and give. Does someone want to borrow from you? Don’t turn away from him. Live the surrendered life. This principle is not designed to support sin and to endorse manipulation. Remember the rhetorical strategy of hyperbole. Therefore, if a homeless guy who is obviously addicted to drugs or alcohol demands ten dollars from you, you may or may not decide to give it. The Spirit also has to be involved. Let him lead you.
The apostles are about to live the surrendered life.
Matthew 10:8-13
Freely you have received, freely give. 9 Don’t acquire gold nor silver nor copper for your money belts, 10 nor a backpack for the journey, nor two cloaks nor sandals nor a staff. For the worker is worthy of his nourishment. 11 Into whichever town or village you enter, inquire who is worthy there. Remain there until you leave. 12 As you enter one house, greet it. 13 And if the house is worthy, may your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, may your peace return to you. (Matt. 10:8-13)
They were allowed to stay in people’s homes and receive food and shelter, though they traveled around and lived on faith. So they had to get food and shelter from somewhere.
Once again, Jesus illustrates ways in which kingdom citizens must keep a loose grip on their possessions. Be sure that your possessions don’t possess you.
In other words, just as the “eye for eye” and “tooth for tooth” are hypothetical court case illustrations to indicate equality of compensation, so too these individual examples of the surrendered life that Jesus teaches are also possible and hypothetical cases to illustrate the surrendered life. If you want to take them literally, you can, but if you want to view them as mere illustrations of the surrendered life, you can interpret them in that way too.
Finally, let’s apply, one more time, vv. 38-42 to the early churches, as Christianity spread around the provinces. Paul writes of contentment with the little things in life and the denial of the love of money, which is the root of all evil:
8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1 Tim 6:8-10, ESV)
Food and clothing are all we need for life. Of course, Paul is boiling things down for the purpose of illustration. We also need shelter and loving fellowship and (church) family. Even traveling around as missionaries, Paul and his team needed shelter at least once in a while. However, desiring to be rich to the point of loving money is bad.
Nonetheless, note what Paul writes about the rich who had converted to Christ:
17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. (1 Tim. 6:17-19, ESV)
Paul does not order them to sell everything, but he has the same spirit towards possessions that Jesus has in this pericope. All the rich or middle class are to keep a loose grip on their possessions and not be arrogant about money.
The Torah and Jesus offer hypothetical cases. The Torah’s principle is equity or punishment that fits the crime. Jesus principle is a surrendered life. Be willing just to let go of the hassles that come up; avoid needless complications. Trust God to make up any injustice that you suffer. Let him work out the principle of equity. He’s the great equalizer.
Turner on 5:39b-42: “But these five examples should not be taken in a pedantic fashion that would limit their intended application. One may never need to literally turn the other cheek, give up one’s coat, or go the extra mile, but one must be willing to selflessly suffer personal loss with faith that the loving heavenly Father will meet one’s needs and deal with the injustice and deal with the injustice in his own’s time. … Paul was evidently familiar with this tradition (Rom. 12:14-21, quoting Deut. 32:35; Prov. 25:21-22; 1 Cor. 6:7-8; 1 Thess. 5:15).”
II. Application
A. Questions to ponder
1. In this passage, Jesus is teaching the general principle of the surrendered life with hypothetical scenarios that may or may not actually come true. His point: Do possessions have you, or does God have your possessions?
2. Do you own your life, or does God own it?
3. How do you express the surrendered life in your walk with God today?
SOURCES
To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom.
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 