How should Christians respond to physical attack? Jesus in Matthew 5:38-42 says,
38You have heard that it was said, ’An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
These verses seem to suggest that Christians are never to fight against those who try to hurt them; but, what about the command from Christ to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39)? If loving ourselves according to Christ’s words equals “never protecting our lives,” then if we love our neighbors as ourselves, we should never protect their lives either. A few days ago, a former deacon walked into Lakeland Church in Florida, after murdering his own wife, and shot his pastor in the back of the head as he knelt praying. The shooter then fired three bullets into the associate pastor; but, was tackled by some other congregants before he could do more damage. Based on the words of Christ above, were these Christians wrong to stop this man from shooting other people? No, because it seems that Jesus’ point in the Sermon on the Mount is that the theocracy of Israel is over. He has fulfilled the Law (Matt. 5:17); and Christians are no longer under the Law of Israel in a civil sense, but are instead under the law of the local government (Rom. 13:1-7). Thus, God’s holiness is no longer directly associated with a specific national people on earth. His holiness is instead associated with His church through Christ. This church of Christ however, although existing on earth, is part of a heavenly kingdom that is not part of this world (John 18:36). Hence, Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” must be applied only to Christians who are suffering because they are members of this heavenly kingdom. In Israel, the “reason” for the attack had little significance, for the “eye for an eye” law remained; but, Jesus says that since the theocracy is over, the reason for the attack has huge significance. Hurting other humans in the civil kingdom may be avenged by the Sword (Rom. 13:1-7), but persecution of the heavenly kingdom may not me avenged, except by God (Rom. 12:18-21). God has judged the sins of His people in Christ; thus reconciling them to Himself. As a result, Christians too must carry out their ministry of reconciliation with their enemies since they are part of His heavenly kingdom and this heavenly ethic (2 Cor. 5:17-21). Just as Christ suffered for His church, Christians too should arm themselves with the same mind (1 Pet. 4:1-2).
David VanDrunen explains this reality in the November 2009 Issue of Themelios (I HIGHLY recommend that you follow this link and read the entire article):
Finally, the legitimacy of self-defense depends upon the context: am I being assailed as just another citizen of the civil kingdom or as a disciple of Jesus and hence as a member of the church? If an individual Christian is threatened by a burglar who breaks into his home to steal his property, this is an ordinary civil matter, and the Christian (who, in this setting, just happens to be a Christian) is free (and perhaps even obligated?) to defend himself or seek coercive legal remedy. But if an individual Christian is threatened because of her Christian faith, because she is identified with Christ as a member of his church, then is non-retaliation perhaps the appropriate response? The context of Matt 5:38–42 suggests an affirmative answer. Jesus most likely envisions his disciples being slapped, stripped, and conscripted not in ordinary civil disputes but specifically as his disciples: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me” (5:10–11). The apostolic example suggests that Christians, in the face of state action, may peaceably appeal to the civil government to abide by its own laws (e.g., Acts 22:25–29). The apostles, however, never retaliated when government officials treated them unjustly and never pursued legal action against those who persecuted them. The disruption of the civil kingdom may be avenged by the sword but the persecution of the kingdom of heaven may not.
In other words, if a bully persecutes you because you’re a Christian, enjoy the fact that you’re so saved that even the Devil and his servants recognize it (Acts 5:41). However, if a bully merely wants to destroy the image of God in you, since you are still a citizen of the civil kingdom (Rom. 13:1-7), and this is not a heavenly kingdom matter (Gen. 1:26), you are to protect this image of God in obedience to Christ (Col. 1:16-17). Concerning protecting your family, do not strip them of the privilege of suffering for the sake of Christ if they are Christians (Luke 6:22); but, if someone merely wants to snuff out the image of God in them, then protect your wife and children to the point of laying down your life for them (Eph. 5:25). We are not to be doormats in the civil kingdom since we are indeed citizens here (Rom. 13:1-7; Col. 1:16-17); however, we are to be doormats if need be due to living here in a not fully realized heavenly kingdom. In other words, persecute me for being a Christian, and I will let you with joy; but, persecute me for being a human being, and you will have a fight on your hands… and I’m a biter!
What are your thoughts?
Chris Roberts (63)
Dave Miller (61)
Bob Hadley (48)
Debbie Kaufman (45)
dr. james willingham (44)
Les (30)
cb scott (29)
Rick Patrick (27)
Bill Mac (26)
Christiane (26)
There is a portion of a description of the early Christians in the fifth chapter of the Epistle (letter) of Mathetes to Diognetus. The chapter is entitled: ‘The Manners of the Christians’
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm
” . . . . They love all men, and are persecuted by all.
They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified;
they are reviled, and bless;
2 Corinthians 4:12
they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour;
they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers.
When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life;
they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred. “
Jared, I think that Mathetes is describing the early Christians in terms of their humility . . . and that is NOT the same thing as ‘weakness’ in the face of bullying . . . .
the kind of humility described transcends the behavior endured, and ‘overcomes’ it with a strength that is not worldly
Jared, Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount to tell us how we should live now. I believe we should respond in the same way across the board. I don’t see any separation between responses for worldly / civil and Christian / kingdom matters. I just think it’s our stance across the board as we live out our lives.
The Old Testament – The Law – speaks of if you kill a man that breaks into your house at night you can in no way be held responsible;however, if it happens in the daytime you can at least be charged. I’ve read it and can find it again if forced. The verse I do remember is Luke 22:36 which is Christ speaking at the Last Supper and tells his Disciples that things are going to change for them – and if they don’t own a sword to sell their coat and buy one. That’s plain enough for me that a we have a right to self defense. You can read it a little before and a little after for yourself – I’m no teacher. That’s what some of you guys are supposed to be good at. I believed this long before I heard this verse. I found “eye for an eye” but as I recall it was/is always taken out of context from what the Bible really says . KJV , but I would have to “work” to find it again.
Jack,
Some of the verses about the death penalty, self defense, and eye for an eye, are found in the following Scriptures:
Genesis 9:6
Exodus 21:12
Exodus 21:23-25
Exodus 22:2
David R. Brumbelow
Jack, just a few verses later when the disciples use the very same swords to defend Jesus, an innocent man, He rebukes them. Are you sure that what He was saying in Luke 22: 36 is a warrant to carry arms for the purpose of self-defense or was it for the purpose of fulfilling the saying “And he was numbered with the transgressors”, which is found in the very next verse?
Arthur Sido , I’m sure just as he also told them to ” carry their purse ” as before they hadn’t needed money. I’m sure alright . The incident in the garden where the Roman’s ear was cut off and Jesus put it back is sseparate. One person was carrying a sword in Jesos’ presence for sure and didn’t hesitate to use it. Other big name pastors have made a months sermon out of this and I have copies of their sermons on video.
I would call ‘The Church’ and ‘The Civil Society’ two different entities, yes.
I would say that, if the Civil Society contains within it members who are morally affected by the teaching of the Church, then the Civil Society will reflect that to its benefit . . .
1. the Civil Society will be more likely to seek the ‘common good’ over the benefit of a few at the expense of the many;
2. the Civil Society will reflect ‘respect’ for the human person over the adulation of a privileged class and disregard for the dignity of the rest of the society;
3. the Civil Society will seek deeply as its goal an ordered setting where all citizens should live and be well, and the few are not at the mercy of the many.
These are some examples of a ‘civil society’ that is nourished by having some of its members influenced by the morality and ethics of the Church.
The Church can affect the health of a civil society greatly, if the Church is devoted to the preservation of the dignity of all human persons.
Two ‘kingdoms’ ?
I wouldn’t go so far as the call a ‘civil society’ a kingdom on the same level as the Kingdom of God, no.
1. the Civil Society will be more likely to seek the ‘common good’ over the benefit of a few at the expense of the many;
Translation–Government is responsible to redistibute wealth. It’s not fair for some to have money and homes and the like when others don’t have exactly those same things.
2. the Civil Society will reflect ‘respect’ for the human person over the adulation of a privileged class and disregard for the dignity of the rest of the society;
Translation–Government will take money out of the pockets of hardworking, good people to place that money in the hands of people who are able bodied, mentally competent, and able to work but are too lazy to work as much as they need to in order to take care of their obligations.
3. the Civil Society will seek deeply as its goal an ordered setting where all citizens should live and be well, and the few are not at the mercy of the many.
Translation–Those poor homosexuals are always so oppressed. The poor things. Bless their hearts.
Joe, what IS your understanding of ‘the common good’?
For my Church, seeking the ‘common good’ is a Christian value, but it may not be something that has meaning for you personally.
Your comment shows me that you and I don’t define ‘the common good’ in the same way at all.
I believe that ‘seeking the common good’ IS a value of evangelical Christian people . . . . and that it is a value born out of Christ’s charity to desire deeply that ALL people should live and be well.
If I am wrong about this, I need to be corrected.
I sincerely don’t think I am wrong. Wade Burleson has a wonderful post up now about a Christian woman and her work. She was an evangelical Christian, whose life was devoted to the care of many in need and who was given the title of ‘Mother’.
Her compassionate life reflected Christ.
I don’t see ‘evangelicals’ as rejecting the plight of those who are more vulnerable and fragile and broken in our society. Far from it.
Trust me, you’re not only wrong about this but pretty much everything else.
Your concept of working toward the common good has NOTHING to do with Christ. It has everything to do with Karl Marx.
There is nothing in the Bible that suggests or implies for even a nanosecond that it is the government’s job to help the poor, particularly by taking money out of the pocket of decent, hardworking people and giving it to people who could work but won’t.
the ‘common good’, JOE
like in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States
. . . ‘to promote the general welfare’
THAT ‘common good’ is what I’m referring to . . . the things that benefit ALL of our citizens
Now, if ‘solidarity with the poor’ is not a Christian value to you, JOE, I can understand that . . . but it is to many Christian people, including many evangelical Christian people
Solidarity with the poor does NOT mean taking money out of the pockets of hard working people and giving that money to people who are too LAZY to work even though they’re able to work. Further, there is nothing in the Bible that suggsts for even a moment that it is the job of the government to provide for poor people.
You can believe what you want about how the problem is solved (Redistribution of wealth because it’s just not fair for some people to have things that others don’t–waaah) but don’t you DARE claim that it’s Christian when you can’t point to even one verse that says it’s the governments job to take money from hard working, good people and give it to lazy people who could work but won’t.
Oh, furthermore, “solidarity with the poor” does NOT mean that we all deserve to get the same things. If I earn money because I work and I have health insurance because I work then when my child gets sick I can take them to Vanderbilt Children’s Center or whatever. If someone else could work but chooses not to and lives off the government handouts that your side provides and all they can afford to do is take their child to the county health clinic that’s just too bad. If they want better than the lowest available they can WORK for it. Nothing in the Bible suggests or implies that them not having as much as me, or me not having as much as someone else, is wrong or sinful.
Again, you can believe what you want to about “the poor” but don’t you DARE say that the Christian solution is government taking money out of the pockets of hard working, good people to give it to lazy people who don’t want to work when you can’t point out ANYTHING in God’s inerrant word that says it is the governments job to do that.
Oh, and you remember that email to Debbie that hurt you heart so badly. Well, just be glad I don’t have your email because there are things I’m willing to say to you but I’m not willing to get banned from here for saying them.
The Church can affect the health of a civil society greatly, if the Church is devoted to the preservation of the dignity of all human persons.
Unless, of course, those human persons happen to still be in their mother’s womb or they survive their mother’s attempt to legally murder them. I mean, what kind of monster would vote to deny medical care to the survivors of an abortion?
Books such as Mere Christianity by Lee C. Camp seem to indicate that pacivism is the way to go for believers. I don’t believe this. Defending oneself is reasonable. If I want what’s best for my children, then I will want them to be protected from one who is involved in sin and seeks to do them harm. Likewise, Jesus, being greater than, wants good things for me. Therefore, He wants me protected from those who are being sinful and want to do me harm. However, I cannot help but think of the sweet young lady at Columbine High School who gave her life for Christ. How precious she is in the eyes of God for refusing to denounce her savior. May she be forever remembered for turning the other cheek. Maybe I’m just not spiritual enough. Personally, I would tend not to, and have tended not to, fight back in my life when physically threatened. But I can’t say honestly that I want my kids to do the same. I’m not sure what is right here. Turn the other cheek. Jesus commanded it. But practically speaking, it’s hard to obey. I’m not saying we shouldn’t obey it, I’m just saying it’s hard to.
The seemingly most reasonable explanation I heard as to turning the other cheek was a question as to how someone would slap you on the right cheek. Facing someone else, the slapper would either have to be left-handed, or, more likely, slap you backhanded. I understand that was considered an insult.
Thus it became a principle that you do not repay insults with insults.
If the principle was that we were not to defend ourselves, why was Paul spirited away secretly, why did Israel defend themselves, etc.?
And I believe C.S. Lewis wrote “Mere Christianity”.
I believe Jesus called us to “turn the other cheek” in all instances in life. It seems to me this is a general rule. It remains for us to translate that into practice in daily living.
I think one might feel forced to dichotomize the situation if understood literally. I see it in terms of “the spirit” of what’s said. We must live according to this rule: turn the other cheek. What that means in practice in each situation may not be what you think. To my understanding, a general attitude, a stance, an overall approach to life is requested.
I speak as one who served, well armed, in the Arabian Gulf as a United States Marine: do no harm to your conscience in this. There is a fine line we walk that is easily crossed between self-defense and retaliation. (I don’t think anyone here would encourage anyone to seek vengeance.)
But I consider Jim Elliot and the rest in Ecuador who, armed as they were, allowed their slaughter without firing a shot for the sake of their murderers. I would probably have been able to do the same. I would step in and defend someone who was being attacked. I can say the same for my family. I would defend them. And inasmuch as my family depends on me, I must defend myself in most circumstances for their sake.
But this requires some planning. Just as we buy insurance against unplanned events, it is wise to consider our ability to defend ourselves and others well when we must so that there is minimal loss of life and limb. Someone who is not physically and psychologically ready to rise to the physical defense of himself and others out of principle rather than anger may cause damage or loss of life unnecessarily and lose a reputable testimony of Christ.
Good thoughts Jim.
The best explanation of this line is the understanding of what Jesus was really saying as do do with the Context in with He is saying it and the people He ways saying it too.
So to whom was he saying it to? Was he saying it to wealthy landowners? Was he saying it to Roman Soldiers? Was he saying it to the religious elite of his society?
No, he was talking to the “Joe Blow” of ancient Israel. When he was giving the Sermon on the Mount he was talking to the POWERLESS!
Okay, now what kind of an attack was He talking about. In Matthew it says “If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.” It doesn’t say if someone slaps you on the left cheek, offer the other cheek also. No it specifically mentions the RIGHT CHEEK and in a right handed word that detail is critical.
Go ahead, try it with a willing volunteer but not too hard of course. Take your RIGHT Hand (as most people would use) and try to slap the other person’s right cheek. What kind of slap do you get? Kind of a backhanded slap right? Who (in ancient times of course not now hopefully) does one give such a backhanded slap to? People he considers inferior such as children, women, slaves, people he sees as beneath him. So it’s not so much an attack but an insult meant to “remind one of his place”.
Okay, so this guy goes up to his slave, or peasant and slaps him on his right cheek in effect saying you are lower than dirt to me. What can that person do as a response? I guess he could punch that guy, but like I said the guy is powerful and if he punched him in return the powerful guy could kill him and his family or do some other terrible stuff.
So, I guess he should sit there and take it? Right, passively? Just admit that yeah, I am lower than dirt and that guy certainly had the right to keep me in my place like that.
JESUS SAID NO! By turning the other cheek and making him slap him there the offended is telling him to slap him as he would do an equal. Yeah, I guess at his expense, but given the context the guy probably wouldn’t slap him on the Left cheek anyway because yeah that would acknowledge him as being an equal.
So, instead of passivity Jesus is calling for DEFIANCE! But not in a stupid useless way where the guy could just kill him for him rising up against him, but in a clever way that really left the powerful guy with no recourse against him. Call it rye humor, call it passive/aggressive but regardless, thinking about it, this is the best course of action against a “master” for any violent response would have given the “master” the justification to come down on the powerless like a ton of bricks.
So really this isn’t a situation where equals are fighting against each other. It is a way that the Powerless can stand up against the powerful. Pretty clever I would say but of course it is easy to misunderstand because too many of us want to see it in a modern context.
So just to emphasize this, this statement isn’t a call for pushover passivity. In fact it is a call to DEFIANCE. But not in a stupid way that would just result in a massacre.
Turn the Other Cheek
“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days’ penance. The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day’s wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but “if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz.” But damages for indignity were not paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7).
A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission.
Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus’ audience was. In all three of the examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus’ listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims (“If anyone strikes you…wants to sue you…forces you to go one mile…”). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial occupation.
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, “Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me.”
Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality. Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such “cheeky” behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, “The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating.”
Comments on this entry are closed.