Is it always reasonable to obey the Bible? Are there times when the better action for all considered is to do the opposite of what Scripture teaches? Take, for instance the following statement from Jesus:
“You have heard it said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well” (Matthew 5:38-40).
On the whole, the instruction is sound and right. Violence never resolves an issue completely. The only thing getting into a fight really proves is which person is the better fighter on that given day or time. Revenge may be a dish that is best served cold, but it doesn’t really leave a satisfying feeling in the long run, doesn’t resolve the matter. (By the way, most people complete misunderstand the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” dictate, but that’s for another place. The act of the aggressor is better ignored or walked away from.
But, is that always the case? I am not a believer in universal statements, for the most part (see?). There are almost always exceptions to every rule. Sometimes, Rule 1 is overridden by Rule 2, or vice versa.
In the instance of turning the other cheek, are there times when it’s more harmful to the aggressor to ignore him or her? Is there never a time when it is more beneficial to the aggressor to confront them?
Instances Where it seems to be the Case
Later on in Matthew, Jesus teaches us about confronting wrongs done against us. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus says we are to go to those who wrong us and confront them about the wrong. Jesus’ steps are to confront the person one on one and seek to resolve the issue in that way. If that doesn’t work, take it before a small group and let them make the decision about whether or not a wrong was committed. If that still doesn’t resolve the issue, then take it before the church and let the church make the final ruling.
Of course, Jesus’ instructions are between two people professing a faith in Christ and a desire to follow His teachings. It may be interpreted that Matthew 18 is for believers, while Matthew 5 is for the believer and the general population. However, another passage brings an example where one believer didn’t wait for the one on one or even the small group to confront a fellow believer.
“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong” (Galatians 2:11). Paul goes on to describe how Peter had come up to Antioch from Jerusalem. At first, Peter was fellowshipping with everyone, Jew and Gentile. But then a Jewish contingency arrived from Jerusalem. They looked askance at how Peter was openly dealing with the Gentiles. Paul writes, “But when they arrived, he [Peter] began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group” (v. 12b). Paul then notes that others also began to follow Peter’s example, the result being that there was a threat to the Antioch fellowship. Paul decided the best action was to confront Peter openly before the entire congregation. He accused Peter of living like a Gentile, even though he was a Jew, and that Peter was seeking to force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs (cf. v. 14).
The reason Paul felt the need to ignore Jesus’ very clear teaching on conflict resolution between believers is stated in v. 14: “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all.”
What’s the answer? Are we to say that Paul was wrong to confront Peter the way he did, in clear violation of Matthew 18, or are we to see this as the exception to the rule? From Paul’s writing, it is obvious he thought a potentially damaging event was taking place and that it needed to be confronted immediately and openly. But couldn’t he have confronted Peter quietly, allowing Peter to then come before the congregation and seek their forgiveness? Perhaps not, since Paul states that others had begun to follow Peter’s example.
What I think happened is that Paul saw the danger not necessarily in Peter’s fear of the circumcision group from Jerusalem as Paul was concerned with the seeds of Judaism he saw creeping into the church from a small group of those insisting that all believers follow Jewish rules and customs. A quick reading of Galatians demonstrates that Paul’s concern for the church in Galatia is that it has come under the influence of just such a philosophy. Paul saw the danger and recognized he needed to confront it openly and quickly.
In this instance, both for the church of Antioch and the church in Galatia, Paul was correct in pointing out the fallacy in a very confrontational manner. While there was no literal slap on the right cheek, Paul saw the actions of Peter and, by extension, the early Judaizers as a metaphorical slap. Rather than turn to them the other also, he fought back. Not for his personal gain or pride, but for the sake of the gospel and the sake of truth.
So, I believe there are times when it is necessary to look past the literal words and see it in connection with the rest of the Gospel and the Scripture. Context is always important.
Again, if we need another example, we need only look at Jesus clearing the Temple. There is no real way we can say that those who were practicing a necessary and legitimate trade in the Temple was harming Jesus personally in any stretch of the imagination. Jesus was under no obligation to purchase anything while at the Temple, nor was He required to purchase Temple coins from the moneychangers. Yet, Jesus was very forceful in His confrontation with the Temple merchants. Why?
For one thing, the moneychangers and merchants had their stalls in the Court of the Gentiles. The Temple grounds were divided into five or six parts. The outer circle was the Court of the Gentiles. Here, anyone and everyone was welcome to enter. Within that court, there was another court, limited to only those of Jewish faith or birth. That court was divided into two courts, the Court of Women and the Court of Men. The Court of Women stood between the Court of Gentiles and the Court of Men. From the Court of Men, only the priests and Levites could enter the next court, the one immediately surrounding the Temple itself. When it came to the Temple, it was divided into two parts—the main hall and the Holy of Holies. All priests could enter the main hall, but only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and then only on the Day of Atonement. In other words, the design of the Temple grounds was to slowly reduce the groups of people who could come into God’s presence. The furthest circle was the Gentiles, then the women, the men, the Levitical class, the priests and finally, the High Priest.
It was this outermost court where Jesus took His stand. The stalls that were set up in the Court of the Gentiles indicated that any effort of reaching out into the rest of the world was lip service only. Jesus understood His Father’s love for all people. He also understood that what had probably started as a ministry for those who had travelled a great distance to the Temple to worship had become a money-making business, and that the love of money had crept into that which was intended to be a place of worship and confession. So, Jesus made a whip, drove out the cattle and sheep, upsetting tables and creating general chaos in the Temple area. Why? “It is written, ‘My house will be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it ‘a den of robbers’” (Luke 19:46).
What Do We Take from These Examples?
These two examples let us know that there are exceptions to the rule of turning the other cheek. There are times when others must be confronted. But there are certain truths we can take from the two examples.
First, when it comes to personal pain or discomfort or harm, the rule of turning the other cheek does seem to apply. Neither Jesus nor Paul addressed a personal wrong (remembering that Paul was also Jewish in the Antioch confrontation), but did confront an issue that was hindering other people’s potential relationship with God. Only then did Jesus and Paul act in a way that was contradictory to the instruction to turn the other cheek.
Second, we must be very sure of why we are not turning the cheek. We need to consider carefully whether the confrontation is based on personal injury or not. Personal insults and “righteous indignation” are not really valid reasons to fight back. We need to remember that God is the final judge and our task is to be witnesses, not judge and jury. If and only if the action we are confronting is a direct threat to another person’s or a group of people’s relationship with God should we not turn the cheek.
Conclusion
The truth is, not everyone in the world is going to like us. There are people who seem to delight in making our lives difficult. In these cases, it’s better to turn the other cheek, to offer the cloak along with the tunic.
But when someone’s actions are hindering the worship of God, whether intentionally or not, then we need to step up and speak the truth of God’s word. There must be a determined devotion to ensuring that everyone’s access to God is made clear and open.
© 2019 Glynn Beaty