Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29 - turning the other cheek

[Judah]

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Luke 6:29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

I am often hearing it said that, since Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, we are therefore not to fight to defend ourselves. This was said to me in derision recently, implying that Christianity does not equip us to defend our countries against invaders, or if we do fight back an enemy then we are not following Christ - something of a no-win situation for a Christian!
I suspect these words are being taken out of context.
What do you folks see to be a good response to this kind of accusation. Should Christians not defend themselves from the actions of someone who would kill them? Or if they do, how is that justified with Scripture.

[Canuckster1127]

Romans 13:1-7

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Note verses 4 - 5.

The government in this instance is indicated as God's proper authority for defending a society and enforcing laws upon individuals.

I'd start there.

[FFC]

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

A pastor once brought up an interesting point about this passage. Jesus said if someone strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also. Unless the offender is lefthanded, striking someone on his right cheek would be a back hand. I guess the point was that there is a difference between an impulsive act done in anger and a premeditated attack.

Just something that made me think.

[Kurieuo]

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Luke 6:29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

I am often hearing it said that, since Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, we are therefore not to fight to defend ourselves. This was said to me in derision recently, implying that Christianity does not equip us to defend our countries against invaders, or if we do fight back an enemy then we are not following Christ - something of a no-win situation for a Christian!
I suspect these words are being taken out of context.
What do you folks see to be a good response to this kind of accusation. Should Christians not defend themselves from the actions of someone who would kill them? Or if they do, how is that justified with Scripture.

I believe this is a classic case of "never read a Bible verse"

In the context of the other passages it seems clear to me that Jesus to calling us to be patient with those who take advantage of us, and love them despite their sinning against us. It is not a call to be a pacifist, but to be loving towards others as God wants us to get along with each other. That this is what Jesus means I think is especially highlighted by Matthews ending verses:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

And Luke seems even clearer with that this is Christ's intended meaning:

32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Kurieuo

[Judah]

Thank you for your responses, Canuckster, FFC and Kurieuo.
They have been of help.

FFC, somewhere I read an essay on the very thing that you mentioned. Unfortunately I cannot remember where it was. If anyone does have a link to a paper on this subject I would be very grateful if they would post it here.

[FFC]

Thank you for your responses, Canuckster, FFC and Kurieuo.
They have been of help.

FFC, somewhere I read an essay on the very thing that you mentioned. Unfortunately I cannot remember where it was. If anyone does have a link to a paper on this subject I would be very grateful if they would post it here.

Judah,
I found this link while searching the web http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm and if you look down about 5 paragraphs the author explains what I tried to explain. It is very interesting. check it out.

[Judah]

Thanks for that, FFC.
I don't think it is the same paper I had read, but it is saying something very similar with the reference to shame rather than physical injury.

[Turgonian]

Does this verse teach us to be doormats?

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Smith interprets these commands as directives to tolerate injustice and be a doormat, and says "such precepts require the obliteration of one's capacity to distinguish the good from the evil." [323] Taken in their social context, these commands require no such things. "Resist not evil" is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them. Three examples for the teaching follow: Turn the other cheek; if someone sues you for your cloak, also give them your tunic; if you are forced to go one mile, go two. All three of these things refer to what amount to inconvenient, but nevertheless perfectly legal, impositions on the person. The "slap on the cheek" is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up. The cloak/tunic bit must be recognized in terms of the ancient Jewish customary process of making good pledge on one's debts by handing over a valuable item as collateral; for most people in this time, items of clothing were the only thing suitable. In essence, the teaching is to provide surety of repayment of a justly-decided debt, even to those who are enemies. Finally, the double-mileage command refers in context to the legal right a Roman soldier had to make any person carry their belongings for up to one mile. As you might imagine, this was not a popular requirement in the neighborhood of Palestine, but it was the law, and the teaching again is in essence, do it, and do it without complaint, even though the Roman is your enemy. And if you need to know why, consider that your resultant testimony as a member of God's kingdom (for the Sermon on the Mount is composed of instructions for just that set) is far, far more important than a few mild inconveniences or insults to your person...not that one like Smith would agree, having no recognition of the kingdom in the first place. Nevertheless, Smith's analysis is completely oblivious to both the context and the intent of the teaching.

[Judah]

Thank you for that, Turgy.
Er, who did you say wrote it?

[Turgonian]

Thought you might like it.