Year A–Seventh Sunday of Ordinary Time
The Gospel reading for this upcoming Sunday Mass for the 7th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year A, comes from Matthew 5:38-48. There’s one detail in it that we focus on in this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word: Jesus’s instruction to turn the other cheek. This teaching is often interpreted to mean that we as Christians must never defend ourselves. But as we argue in this episode such an interpretation is wrong.
The Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! SCW Merchandise
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
The Gospel reading for this upcoming Sunday Mass comes from Matthew 5:38-48. There’s one detail in it that we’re going to spend our time focusing on in this episode: it’s Jesus’s instruction to turn the other cheek.
Even though we’re not going to focus on everything that’s in the passage, it’s important to read the entirety of the passage to establish context. Here it is:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. 40 If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. 41 Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? 48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect
Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek” is often interpreted to mean that we as Christians must never defend ourselves. But we’re going to argue here that such an interpretation is wrong.
Explaining why we should reject such a pacifist interpretation will be our first order of business. Then, we’ll give some possible interpretations as to what Jesus means.
REASONS TO REJECT PACIFIST INTERPRETATION
So, on to the reasons why we should reject this interpretation.
First, if Jesus meant for us to be pacifists, then he would be contradicting himself. In Luke 22:36-38, Jesus approves of taking up a sword for self-defense. He tells the apostles, “[L]et him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one . . . 38 And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’” If the pacificist interpretation of Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek” were correct, then Jesus here would be contradicting himself. Since we can’t say that Jesus would contradict himself, we must reject the pacifist interpretation of the “turn the other cheek” teaching.
Now, someone might counter that Jesus rebukes Peter for lashing out against the Temple guard in the garden later in verses 50-51, telling Peter to put his sword away. But this prohibition to use the sword was a prohibition of a particular kind of use—namely, using the sword to stop Jesus from being taken away to suffer and die. Jesus had already instructed the apostles that He was to be suffer and die in accord with God’s will (see Luke 9:44; 18:32). Peter, therefore, was acting contrary to the revealed will of the Father. Prohibition against using the sword in a particular circumstance doesn’t mean that we can’t use the sword for defense whatsoever. In other words, a particular prohibition doesn’t entail a universal prohibition.
A second reason why the pacifist interpretation is wrong is that makes Jesus out to be one who doesn’t follow His own teaching. Consider, for example, Jesus’ exchange with the high priest at his trial in John 18:19-23. When the high priest questions Jesus about his teaching, Jesus defends himself, saying, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said” (vv.20-21). An officer of the court then struck Jesus, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” (v.22). Jesus, again, defends himself, saying, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me” (v.23). Notice Jesus didn’t “turn the other cheek” in the pacifist sense. He scolded the officer who hit him.
A third reason for rejecting the pacifist interpretation is that Paul doesn’t behave in a way that’s consistent with it. Take, for example, Paul’s appeal to his Roman citizenship as to avoid Roman torture and crucifixion (Acts 22:25-29). As he was tied up, about to be scourged by a centurion, Paul makes his case, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen, and uncondemned?” (v.25). Luke tells us that the centurion then went to the tribunal, informed them of Paul’s Roman citizenship, and the tribunal “withdrew from him [Paul] instantly.” Luke goes on to say that “the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.” Paul didn’t lay over and “turn the other cheek.” He did what he could to limit the evil done to him.
Paul also defends himself in Acts 23:3 when struck on the mouth while standing before the Jewish council and Ananias the high priest, saying, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?”
Paul then causes division among the Jewish council when he “perceived that part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees,” crying out, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am on trial” (v.7). Luke reports that “a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided” (v.8).
Paul’s behavior here doesn’t jibe with the pacifist interpretation of “turn the other cheek.” Lest we say Paul is disobeying Jesus, we ought to reject the pacifist interpretation.
Now that we’ve established reasons as to why we shouldn’t read Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek” in a pacifist way, how should we interpret it?
One interpretation it that Jesus is using hyperbole to accentuate an important point. That Jesus is using hyperbole is supported by the hyperbolic context of the teaching.
Consider, for example, 5:29-30, Jesus teaches that if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away, or that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut if off and throw it away. Surely, this is hyperbolic language meant to accentuate the idea that we must get rid of all things that serve as obstacles to us getting to heaven.
In 5:34-37, Jesus teaches that we shouldn’t swear and let our “yes” and “no” be simply “yes” and “no.” But when the High Priest placed Jesus under oath at his trial, saying, “I adjure thee by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ,” Jesus responded, thereby indicating that he didn’t intend for us to take his teaching against swearing to be absolute. Rather, it was meant to express the idea that we as Christians shouldn’t need oaths when dealing with each other because a marker of being a Christian is honesty. There is no need for an oath when honesty is presumed.
In 5:42, Jesus teaches that if anyone begs from you, then we shouldn’t refuse him but must give to him what he asks. Jesus can’t mean this literally; otherwise, we as Christians would be broke and unable to provide for our families. But surely, Jesus wouldn’t command us to do something that would run contrary to God’s command to care for our families’ needs. The point of the teaching that we as Christians should be known for our generosity.
Given that the immediate context both before and after the teaching in question involves hyperbole, we can reasonably conclude that Jesus is using hyperbole when he says to “turn the other cheek.”
The question now is, “What’s the accentuated point.” There are a few options, all of which are related in some degree.
One option is that Jesus is teaching us that we need to be peacemakers. We need to have a disposition such that peace is our primary goal.
Another option, proposed by Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II-II:72:3), is that Jesus is teaching us to be patient in the face of things done against us and have a “preparedness of mind” to take the insult. The idea here is that we need to bear wrongs patiently, which is one of the spiritual works of mercy. Aquinas gives this teaching explicitly in connection with Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek,” but within the context of the need of us having patience in the face of revilers (those who attack us not by violent action but by words).
Another option, proposed by R.T. France, is that we should have an attitude that’s not so gung-ho on insisting on personal legal rights, even if they are legitimate. Rather, we should be willing to forgo such legal rights when insulted. One clue for this interpretation is the use of the Greek verb anthistēmi, which translates “resist,” when Jesus says, “Do not resist one who is evil.” As France points out, “the verb anthistēmi is sometimes used for ‘take legal action against’” (France, in TNTC Matthew).
We can add to this the fact that according to Jewish law one could receive financial compensation for being slapped in the face, since it was insulting to one’s honor. According to the Mishnah, M. Baba Kamma 8:5, heavier compensation was given for being slapped with a back-handed slap because such a slap involved more insult to one’s honor. This seems to be the type of slap that Jesus had in mind, since to be slapped on the right cheek by a right-handed person, the dominant hand for most people, could only be done with the back of the hand. Given this backdrop of legal financial compensation, some scholars, like France, suggest that Jesus is challenging his disciples to not insist so much on what is legally due to them, in this case financial compensation for being defamed.
Now, given the hyperbolic nature of the statement, Jesus doesn’t intend that we always seek peace, or that we always bear the wrong, or that we always not take legal action against those who insult us. So the question arises, “What’s our guide for determining when we should seek violence in response to the abuse, or no longer bear the wrong, or take legal action?”
Here Aquinas can be our guide. In his above articulation that we should have a “preparedness of mind” to take the insult, he says that we should do so only “if necessary,” or “if it should be expedient” to do so (Summa Theologiae II-II:72:3). He assures us that we “are not always bound to do this actually” (ibid). Of course,
Aquinas gives two reasons why it might be fitting at times for us to withstand against being abused. Of course, whether this retaliation is carried out by an individual or those in authority will be determined by the circumstances. Again, his specific target is “revilers,” but we can apply it to physical abuse as well.
The first reason why sometimes it is good to withstand the abuse is “for the good of the reviler,” which, for Aquinas, involves keeping his immoral behavior in check and keeping him from repeating the abuse. The second reason, according to Aquinas, is “for the good of many who would be prevented from progressing in virtue on account of our being abused.” Aquinas quotes Gregory’s Homily IX on Ezekiel: “Those who are so placed that their life should be an example to others, ought, if possible to silence their detracters, lest their preaching be not heard by those who could have heard it, and they continue their evil conduct through contempt of a good life.”
So, Jesus’ teaching that we must “turn the other cheek” could be interpreted as a hyperbolic statement to accentuate the point that we need to be peacemakers, patient, or not so gung-ho in insisting on our legal rights for getting back at the offender.
There’s another interpretation, however, that some have given.[1] It’s suggested that Jesus is teaching his disciples to be willing to bear persecution for His sake without retaliation.
Recall, the strike on the right cheek implies an insulting slap of the highest kind. From whom might the early Christians be receiving such slaps? A very plausible candidate would be the synagogue officials, many of whom, according to Luke’s account in the Acts of the Apostles, persecuted the early Christians. For such non-Christian Jews, the Christians were heretics, and thus would have been, in their eyes, deserving of such insulting slaps.
Moreover, the Greek word that’s translated as “strike,” rhapizō, is used in Matthew 26:67 in reference to those present at Jesus’ trial “slapping” Jesus within the context of them accusing him as a blasphemer.
This interpretation fits with the subsequent instruction in verse 45: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
So, it could be that Jesus speaks of “turning the other cheek,” or not retaliating as a response to insult, within the specific circumstance of being persecuted for His name’s sake.
Regardless of which interpretation we go with for the instruction “turn the other cheek,” we know that Jesus is not advocating for pacifism.
Conclusion
Well, that does it for this episode of The Sunday Catholic Word.
We’re now equipped with some strategies for arguing against a pacifist interpretation of Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek.” If you’re interested in the philosophical principles that ground legitimate self-defense, see my article, “How far can a Christian go in self-defense?” at catholic.com.
Thank you for subscribing to the podcast. Please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. I hope that you have a great 7th Sunday of ordinary time.
[1] See J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, Part One: The Proclamation of Jesus (E.T. London: SCM Press, 1971), 239; R. T. France, in TNTC Matthew; W. F. ALBRIGHT AND C. S. MANN Matthew, The Anchor Bible, vol. 26 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1971), 68-69.