Jesus: "Do not resist an evil person."

[redactorab]

I’m curious to hear thoughts on Christ’s injunction to “turn the other cheek.” In Matthew 5:39, Jesus says “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This statement seems pretty clearly to outlaw even self-defense, either personally or nationally. Jesus doesn’t say “resist an evil person unless he’s trying to kill you” and he doesn’t say “resist an evil person unless he’s a radical Muslim.” He says “do not resist an evil person.”

So where does that leave us?

 

[redactorab]

tough question, isn’t it?

 

[setter]

I’m curious to hear thoughts on Christ’s injunction to “turn the other cheek.” In Matthew 5:39, Jesus says “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This statement seems pretty clearly to outlaw even self-defense, either personally or nationally. Jesus doesn’t say “resist an evil person unless he’s trying to kill you” and he doesn’t say “resist an evil person unless he’s a radical Muslim.” He says “do not resist an evil person.”

So where does that leave us?

Jesus was speaking to the Jews about about no longer retailiating as "eye for eye’ Old testament rules, and instructing in his new commandment, based on the internal law of grace, whether for an evil done or giving beyond just expectation. NAB footnote:

Footnote 25 [Matthew 38-42] See Lev 24:20. The Old Testament commandment was meant to moderate vengeance; the punishment should not exceed the injury done. Jesus forbids even this proportionate retaliation. Of the five examples that follow, only the first deals directly with retaliation for evil; the others speak of liberality. nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm

 

[redactorab]

Jesus was speaking to the Jews about about no longer retailiating as "eye for eye’ Old testament rules, and instructing in his new commandment, based on the internal law of grace, whether for an evil done or giving beyond just expectation. NAB footnote:

OK, but that doesn’t answer my question–unless you mean that since he was speaking to the Jews, the words aren’t meant for us.
(Didn’t he say just about everything he said “to the Jews”?)

 

[setter]

OK, but that doesn’t answer my question–unless you mean that since he was speaking to the Jews, the words aren’t meant for us.
(Didn’t he say just about everything he said “to the Jews”?)

Jesus came to fulfil the Law of the Old Testament and to usher in the era of salvation history based on the internal law of grace. He was exampling what this means as he called his would be followers (Jews and gentiles alike) to the higher law of love one’s enemies (Mathew 5: 44).

In the verses you cited, Jesus was speaking to retribution, not self-defense.

 

[redactorab]

Jesus came to fulfil the Law of the Old Testament and to usher in the era of salvation history based on the internal law of grace. He was exampling what this means as he called his would be followers (Jews and gentiles alike) to the higher law of love one’s enemies (Mathew 5: 44).

In the verses you cited, Jesus was speaking to retribution, not self-defense.

Hm.The footnote you provided earlier says that “the Old Testament commandment was meant to moderate vengeance; the punishment should not exceed the injury done. Jesus forbids even this proportionate retaliation.”

That “even” tells me that Jesus is saying, “look, I don’t want you to take old-style retribution or retaliation on folks anymore. In fact, I want you to respond to provocation with complete pacifism–if someone hits your cheek, let him hit the other one. If someone takes your tunic, give him your cloak as well.”

The distinction between retribution and self-defense is not evident in the passage, and Jesus sure seems to be advising a pacifist response to provocation–in whatever context. He doesn’t qualify the statement at all.

 

[setter]

Hm.The footnote you provided earlier says that “the Old Testament commandment was meant to moderate vengeance; the punishment should not exceed the injury done. Jesus forbids even this proportionate retaliation.”

That “even” tells me that Jesus is saying, “look, I don’t want you to take old-style retribution or retaliation on folks anymore. In fact, I want you to respond to provocation with complete pacifism–if someone hits your cheek, let him hit the other one. If someone takes your tunic, give him your cloak as well.”

The distinction between retribution and self-defense is not evident in the passage, and Jesus sure seems to be advising a pacifist response to provocation–in whatever context. He doesn’t qualify the statement at all.

You’re right, I am not doing a very good job explaining here, so I will defer to those who can provide a credible explanation deserving of your thoughtful question:

In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us “blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us “if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.

But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, “let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?

In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not be allowed to remain unchecked.

Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that Scripture – all of Scripture – is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is “a time to kill” (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, “how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used.

In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist’s acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or “Peace of Rome,” could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul’s observation that the state “does not bear the sword in vain” but is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4).

catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

 

[itsjustdave1988]

tough question, isn’t it?

Yes, this is difficult question even given additonal context. For example, Jesus actually tells his apostles to sell the cloaks and buy swords.

Luke 22:36 states, “now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.” The apostles replied to Jesus, "***“Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” ***(Lk 22:38).

What do you think he meant by that? Surely the swords were for self-defense, no?

Moreover, the person Jesus said had the greatest faith in all of Israel was a centurion (cf. Matt 8). Didn’t they carry swords, and use them militarily? If there was ever an opportunity to correct this sinful behavior, you’d think this was one of them. Yet, when Jesus or even John the Baptist addressed a centurian, neither of them told them to give up their wretched profession. Instead John said, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” (Lk 3:14). If the life of a centurian was so contrary to the way of Christianity, then I would think John the Baptist would have said something like “quit your profession as it is contrary to the teachings of the Lord.” Instead, the centurion called Cornelius is described as “upright and God-fearing.” (cf. Acts 10).

I’m not saying I have the answer, but I think the interpretation is not as clear cut as you think it is.

 

[banjo]

I’m curious to hear thoughts on Christ’s injunction to “turn the other cheek.” In Matthew 5:39, Jesus says “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This statement seems pretty clearly to outlaw even self-defense, either personally or nationally. Jesus doesn’t say “resist an evil person unless he’s trying to kill you” and he doesn’t say “resist an evil person unless he’s a radical Muslim.” He says “do not resist an evil person.”

So where does that leave us?

According to the New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, “It is against personal vindictiveness that Jesus now speaks out.”
That’s very different from self-defense.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Some other Bible passages to consider…

St. Paul (Rom 13:3-4) stated: “princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil… He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”;

Doesn’t St. Paul explicitly describe the use of the sword for those given the authority of the sovereign to execute wrath against evil, as a function of his ministry from God?

This seems congruent with our obligations as described by Psalm 82:4: “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”. It seems then that those given the authority of the sovereign, if they are ever to “beareth not the sword in vain” as God’s minister, he is to do so to rescue those who are victims of injustice, intending the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.

Jesus taught, “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.” (Matt 10:34). This sword, I believe, is the sword of truth, the sword of His Word, which is opposed to evil peace. However, it seems from Scripture that if the “prince” who is “God’s minister” is to use his literal sword “not in vain,” then he is to do so justly, so as to aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace referred to by Christ in Matt 10:34.

 

[setter]

Some other Bible passages to consider…

Though more in spiritual terms, violence is part and parcel of conversion and resisting evil:

“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force.” Matthew 11: 12

 

[redactorab]

Great points, all. And thanks for the thoughtful replies. I followed up on some of the scriptural references, and found an interesting piece about this “cheek striking” business, which was something of an insult back then apparently. So at least in part, some of the sense of that line might be “don’t return insult for insult,” which certainly seems sound. And yes, LUKE 22:35-38, about Jesus’ advising the apostles to take swords with them–presumably to protect from robbers and whatnot–seems like pretty direct advice to use self-defense if needed (although, really, that’s a pretty weird passage there; he says “remember last time I sent you out, I told you not to take anything with you?” They say “yes.” “Well,” he says, “this time take those things (money, a sack) and take a sword with you too.” Frankly, the Bible leaves me scratching my head quite often. I’m no Bible scholar, for sure.)

Pretty obviously, it would be sinful NOT to be violent in some cases–you can’t stand around watching someone commit murder or rape or child abuse. It would be a sin not to take some fast and potentially violent action in those cases.

One piece I found noted that not even Jesus turned the other cheek when he was actually struck… (John 18:22-23). Rather, it sounds like he chafed a bit and gave the guard a piece of his mind.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Confusing

 

[Dan_Brown_2]

Jesus was speaking to the Jews about about no longer retailiating as "eye for eye’ Old testament rules, and instructing in his new commandment, based on the internal law of grace, whether for an evil done or giving beyond just expectation. NAB footnote:

Sorry this is off-topic but does the new testament override the old one? If so why use the old one? If not, why do people not make references to it anymore?

 

[Magicsilence]

Great points, all. And thanks for the thoughtful replies. I followed up on some of the scriptural references, and found an interesting piece about this “cheek striking” business, which was something of an insult back then apparently. So at least in part, some of the sense of that line might be “don’t return insult for insult,” which certainly seems sound. And yes, LUKE 22:35-38, about Jesus’ advising the apostles to take swords with them–presumably to protect from robbers and whatnot–seems like pretty direct advice to use self-defense if needed (although, really, that’s a pretty weird passage there; he says “remember last time I sent you out, I told you not to take anything with you?” They say “yes.” “Well,” he says, “this time take those things (money, a sack) and take a sword with you too.” Frankly, the Bible leaves me scratching my head quite often. I’m no Bible scholar, for sure.)

Pretty obviously, it would be sinful NOT to be violent in some cases–you can’t stand around watching someone commit murder or rape or child abuse. It would be a sin not to take some fast and potentially violent action in those cases.

One piece I found noted that not even Jesus turned the other cheek when he was actually struck… (John 18:22-23). Rather, it sounds like he chafed a bit and gave the guard a piece of his mind.

Christ did not do that.

He asked why the man had hit him.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I think Jesus is advocating a third way.

The two most common ways of dealing with someone who wants to control you by violence are these: fight or flight. Hit them back, so they won’t hit you or cower down, either by running away or by giving in to what they want.

Jesus advocated that you neither strike back nor cower. He advocated that you stand fast with what is right. If you are pressed to go a mile, and then go another mile on top of that, you have changed the situation from servitude to service. If someone wants to take your cloak and you hand over your tunic, you have changed the situation from conflict or theft to charity. If you are hit in the cheek and then say, “If I tell the truth, why hit me?” you are letting the person know that hitting you is not going to make you back down. You have changed from victim to prophet. You are not going to be drawn into that game, and your life is not going to be made a witness to that game. When Jesus said that, after all, wouldn’t a lot of people say he was asking to get hit again? He was challenging the offender with a higher law, and in doing so was offering his other cheek.

That’s what I think that passage is about. That is a gospel of true peace, though, not peace at any price. That’s tough stuff. It is the wisdom of God, though. It is what actually works.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello redactorab,

It is vengence that Jesus opposes, not self defense, as others have suggested.

Jesus tells us to forgive those who tresspass against us. Jesus also gives Apostolic Successors His sworn oath that anyone they call upon Him to bind to sin in heaven, He will bind to sin. What happens to someone when Jesus binds their soul to sin in heaven? They go to hell. Jesus gave to Apostolic Successors, through His sworn oath, the “keys to the Kingdom”, the power of the sword of Jesus’ mouth to slay the wicked to hell.

Why did Jesus give Apostolic Successors the power of the “keys to the Kingdom”? Jesus gave Apostolic Successors the power of the sword of His mouth in order for them to wield Christ’s sword upon the foes of the Church in order to protect Christ’s Bride the Church. Are Church leaders to use the Sword of Christ’s mouth for vengence? Absolutly not! Protection not vengence.

Please visit Throwing Stones

**NAB MAT 16:13 **

Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **NAB REV 1:16 **

A sharp, two-edged sword came out of his mouth…

---

…I hold the keys of death and the nether world."

NAB ISA 11:4

The Rule of Immanuel

He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.​

**NAB JOH 20:20 **

"Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." NAB MAT 5:22

What I say to you is: everyone who grows angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; any man who uses abusive language toward his brother shall be** answerable to the Sanhedrin,** and if he holds him in contempt he risks the fires of Gehenna. **NAB MAT 18:17 **

“If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”

continued:

 

[Steven_Merten]

continued from above:

Anathema

…“To understand the word anathema”, says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to **the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, **whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.”…

…but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven"…

…“Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.”…

…“If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicted; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.”…

…**In passing this sentence, the pontiff **is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces **the formula of anathema **which ends with these words: **Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate **, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.

Quoted from: New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - Anathema

 

[ncgolf]

I think Jesus is advocating a third way.

That’s what I think that passage is about. That is a gospel of true peace, though, not peace at any price. That’s tough stuff. It is the wisdom of God, though. It is what actually works.

Yes … you are right on about what this passage means. It is teaching a way to defend Christianity, how to defend yourself as a follower of Christ.

 

[Trelow]

newadvent.org/fathers/16011.htm
Scroll down to Chapter 19

My own addition (not sure where I got this):

Notice that Jesus mentioned the “right” cheek. Why would He specify a particular cheek? Keep in mind that in Jesus’ time, there were no left handed people, (if you wonder why, think “no toilet paper”). How would a right handed person strike someone on the right cheek? It would be a blow with the back of the hand, a grave insult, even more so in Eastern culture. Jesus isn’t speaking so much on physical violence, as he is on enduring ridicule.