What does turn the other cheek mean?

Understanding Matthew 5:39

Few sayings of Jesus have been more quoted, more debated, and more misunderstood than Matthew 5:39: 'But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.' It is part of Jesus's radical reinterpretation of the law of retaliation (lex talionis) in the Sermon on the Mount, and it has generated vastly different interpretations — from absolute pacifism to creative nonviolent resistance to a purely spiritual metaphor about inner attitude.

The Old Testament Background: Lex Talionis

Jesus is responding to the principle of proportional justice found in the Torah: 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). This law — the lex talionis — was not a license for vengeance. It was a limitation on vengeance. In a world where blood feuds could escalate endlessly (if you injure my brother, I kill your family; if I kill your family, your clan destroys my village), the lex talionis established proportionality: the punishment must match — and not exceed — the offense.

By Jesus's time, Jewish legal tradition had largely replaced literal physical retaliation with monetary compensation. If you knocked out someone's tooth, you did not lose your own tooth — you paid an assessed fine. The Pharisees and rabbis understood the principle as establishing fair legal remedy, not encouraging personal revenge.

Jesus acknowledges this background ('You have heard that it was said...') and then transcends it ('But I tell you...'). He does not critique the lex talionis as unjust — it was a genuine advance in limiting violence. But He calls His followers to a higher standard that goes beyond even proportional justice.

The Slap on the Right Cheek

Jesus's specific example is carefully chosen and culturally loaded. 'If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.'

A slap on the right cheek, delivered by a right-handed person (the vast majority in any population), would be a backhanded blow. In the ancient Near East, a backhanded slap was not primarily an act of physical violence — it was an act of insult, contempt, and social degradation. It was the blow a master gave to a slave, a Roman gave to a Jew, a superior gave to an inferior. It said: 'You are beneath me. You are not my equal. You do not deserve a closed-fist blow as an equal adversary.'

By turning the other (left) cheek, the person who has been struck does something remarkable: they make it impossible for the aggressor to deliver another backhanded blow with their right hand. To strike the left cheek with the right hand requires either an open-palmed slap (a blow between equals) or a closed fist (an act of aggression against an equal). Either way, the power dynamic has shifted. The person being struck has refused to accept the degradation of the backhanded blow while also refusing to strike back.

This reading, popularized by theologian Walter Wink, suggests that turning the other cheek is not passive submission. It is a form of creative, courageous nonviolent resistance that:

1. Refuses to retaliate — breaking the cycle of violence.
2. Refuses to be degraded — asserting one's dignity as a human being.
3. Exposes the aggressor's behavior — forcing them to see what they are doing.
4. Seizes moral initiative — the struck person controls the encounter, not the striker.

Three Examples of Radical Non-Retaliation

Jesus gives three concrete examples in Matthew 5:39-41, each drawn from the daily experience of first-century Palestinian Jews living under Roman occupation:

The slap (v. 39): As discussed above — responding to insult with dignity rather than revenge.

The lawsuit for your shirt (v. 40): 'If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.' Under Jewish law (Exodus 22:25-27), a creditor could take a debtor's outer garment (cloak) as collateral but had to return it by nightfall because the poor used it as a blanket. Jesus suggests: if someone sues for your inner garment (chiton), give them your outer garment (himation) too. This would leave you standing naked in court — and in Jewish culture, the shame of nakedness fell on the one who caused it, not the one who was naked (cf. Genesis 9:20-27). The debtor's nakedness would expose the creditor's greed for all to see.

Going the extra mile (v. 41): Roman soldiers could legally compel civilians to carry their equipment for one mile (the practice of angaria or forced service — the same word used when Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry Jesus's cross in Matthew 27:32). By voluntarily going a second mile, the civilian seizes the initiative: the soldier, who is only authorized to compel one mile of service, is now in an awkward position — technically in violation of military regulations. The oppressed person has turned compliance into a form of moral agency.

In each case, the pattern is the same: the powerless person refuses to play the expected role (victim, debtor, subject) and instead takes surprising action that reframes the situation, exposes injustice, and asserts human dignity — all without retaliating with violence.

What Turning the Other Cheek Is NOT

It is not passivity. Jesus does not tell His followers to do nothing. He tells them to do something — something creative, courageous, and disruptive. Turning the other cheek is an active choice, not a default of weakness.

It is not endorsing abuse. Nowhere does Jesus say that victims of domestic violence, systemic oppression, or ongoing exploitation should simply endure it. The context is interpersonal insult and injustice, not a blanket command to accept all forms of suffering. Scripture also teaches the value of fleeing danger (Matthew 10:23), seeking legal remedy (Acts 16:37-40), and protecting the vulnerable (Psalm 82:3-4).

It is not avoiding all conflict. Jesus Himself was not passive in the face of evil. He drove moneychangers from the temple (John 2:13-17), publicly confronted the Pharisees (Matthew 23), and stood silent before Pilate in a way that was itself an act of profound authority (John 19:9-11). Paul invoked his Roman citizenship to challenge unjust treatment (Acts 22:25-29). Non-retaliation does not mean non-engagement.

It is not a strategy for every situation. The Sermon on the Mount describes the character and disposition of Kingdom citizens, not a rigid protocol for every possible scenario. Christians have debated for centuries whether this teaching applies to personal relationships only (many Reformers' view), to all of life including government (Anabaptist and Quaker traditions), or as an ideal that must be balanced with other biblical principles (just-war tradition).

Theological Significance

Jesus's teaching on non-retaliation is deeply connected to the character of God Himself. God sends rain on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45). God does not immediately punish every offense but shows patience and mercy (Romans 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). The cross itself is the ultimate 'turning of the other cheek' — God in Christ absorbing the full violence and hatred of humanity and responding not with destruction but with forgiveness: 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' (Luke 23:34).

Paul directly echoes Jesus's teaching: 'Do not repay anyone evil for evil... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good' (Romans 12:17, 21). Peter applies it specifically to suffering: 'When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly' (1 Peter 2:23).

The logic is consistent: retaliation perpetuates evil. Only a response that breaks the cycle — absorbing the blow without returning it, responding to hatred with love, meeting violence with creative non-violence — can overcome evil with good. This is not weakness. It is the most demanding form of strength: the strength to absorb a blow and not become the thing that struck you.

Turning the other cheek, rightly understood, is one of the most revolutionary ethical teachings in human history. It does not ask victims to be doormats. It asks disciples to be so secure in their identity, so confident in God's justice, and so committed to breaking cycles of evil that they can respond to insult and injury with creativity, dignity, and moral courage rather than rage.