Matthew 5:39 · Bible study
Matthew 5:39 Commentary: Study: Non-Retaliation and the Turned Cheek
Greek · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
An in-depth study of Matthew 5:39 exploring Jesus' command to turn the other cheek, its original meaning, and the debate over self-defense vs. private revenge.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Jesus calls disciples to renounce personal revenge, not all forms of self-defense or legal justice.
- Key words: ἀντιστῆναι (anthistēmai, to oppose or set against), πονηρῷ (ponērō, evil person), ῥαπίζει (rhapizei, to slap with the hand or rod).
- Main debate: Does this forbid all resistance (including self-defense) or only private retaliation? The commentary tradition is divided.
- Theological theme: Kingdom ethics invert worldly power structures; disciples trust God's justice rather than taking it into their own hands.
- Best use: A key text for teaching on forgiveness, overcoming evil with good, and the difference between civil justice and personal vengeance.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;
WEB World English Bible 2000
But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
KJV King James Version 1769
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
but I--I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
But I say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Mas yo os digo: No resistáis al mal; antes á cualquiera que te hiriere en tu mejilla diestra, vuélvele|strong="G4762, G0846" también la otra;
Mas eu vos digo que não resistais a quem for mau; em vez disso, a qualquer um que te bater à tua face direita, mostra-lhe também a outra.
Mais moi, je vous dis de ne pas résister au méchant. Si quelqu’ un te frappe sur la joue droite, présente-lui aussi l’ autre.
Ich aber sage euch, daß ihr nicht widerstreben sollt dem Übel; sondern, so dir jemand einen Streich gibt auf deinen rechten Backen, dem biete den andern auch dar.
Maar Ik zeg u, dat gij den boze niet wederstaat; maar, zo wie u op de rechterwang slaat, keert hem ook de andere toe;
Ma io vi dico: Non contrastate al malvagio; anzi, se uno ti percuote sulla guancia destra, porgigli anche l’altra;
Ale Ja wam powiadam: Żebyście się nie sprzeciwiali złemu, ale kto by cię uderzył w prawy policzek twój, nadstaw mu i drugi;
А Я говорю вам: не противься злому. Но кто ударит тебя в правую щеку твою, обрати к нему и другую;
只是 我 告訴 你們，不要 與惡人 作對。 有人 打 你的 右 臉，連左 臉也 轉過來 由他打；
But I say to you, Do not make use of force against an evil man; but to him who gives you a blow on the right side of your face let the left be turned.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Matthew 5:39
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Jesus' command 'resist not evil' targets personal vengeance, not all forms of resistance. The phrase 'an eye for an eye' (v.38) was originally a judicial rule for judges (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21), but the Jews had twisted it into a license for private revenge. Barnes notes that 'Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates' but forbids using it for personal retaliation. Calvin writes that Christ 'does not permit his people to repel violence by violence' yet does not forbid preventing an unjust attack. Gill adds that 'a man may lawfully defend himself, and endeavor to secure himself from injuries' and may appear before a magistrate. Clarke interprets 'resist not evil' as 'Do not repel one outrage by another.' The core agreement is that Jesus calls disciples to relinquish the right to get even, trusting God's justice rather than taking matters into their own hands.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Total non-resistance: This view (held by many Anabaptists and early church figures) reads the verse as an absolute prohibition of any forceful resistance, including self-defense. It points to Jesus' example and the call to suffer for righteousness.
- Limited non-resistance: This view (Barnes, Gill, many evangelicals) holds that Jesus forbids personal revenge but allows lawful self-defense and recourse to civil authority. It distinguishes between the judicial rule and private conduct.
- Principled non-retaliation: This view (Calvin, Wesley) focuses on the heart attitude: believers must not harbor revenge or return evil for evil, but may take reasonable steps to prevent harm. The command is about motive, not absolute action.
What is clear: Jesus forbids personal vengeance and calls his disciples to trust God's justice rather than retaliating, as demonstrated by his own example.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'resist not evil' | The Greek phrase (μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ) prohibits retaliating against an evil person out of personal revenge. | Some interpret it as forbidding any forceful resistance (including self-defense and legal action), while others (Barnes, Gill) argue it permits lawful self-defense and recourse to magistrates. |
| The nature of the 'evil person' (τῷ πονηρῷ) | The dative can be neuter ('evil') but most commentators read it as masculine ('the evil person'), consistent with the context of personal injury. | A minority (some early interpreters) read it as abstract evil, widening the prohibition to any response to evil in general, but the consensus favors a personal reference. |
| Application to self-defense | Jesus' examples involve insults, property disputes, and compulsory labor, not life-threatening attacks. | Barnes explicitly states that self-defense when life is endangered is not forbidden. Others (like some Anabaptist traditions) hold that the command is absolute, citing Jesus' own non-resistance. |
| The role of legal recourse | The command to give up one's coat and cloak (v.40) discourages Christians from insisting on their rights in court for personal gain. | Some argue this forbids lawsuits entirely; others say it allows seeking justice for the sake of others (e.g., protecting the vulnerable) but not for personal vindication. |
| The example of Jesus' own response | When struck on the cheek (John 18:22-23), Jesus did not retaliate but also did not simply offer the other cheek; he remonstrated. This is seen as a model. | Some see this as proof that the command is not literal (we may protest injustice), while others see it as Jesus' own consistency with the principle of not returning evil for evil. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The law of retaliation (lex talionis) appears in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. These texts instructed Israelite judges to assign punishments proportionate to the offense. The purpose was to limit vengeance, not encourage it. By the first century, many Jews had adopted this legal principle as a personal code: if someone struck you, you could strike back in equal measure.
A slap on the right cheek carried special insult. In that culture, a right-handed slapper would strike the left cheek with the open hand, but striking the right cheek required a backhanded blow. This was considered a degrading gesture, worse than an open-handed slap. Rabbinical law prescribed fines for such insults; Gill cites the Mishnah that required four hundred zuzim for a backhanded blow. Jesus' command to turn the other cheek does not mean inviting further abuse but signals a refusal to let the offender control the response or the relationship.
Roman occupation adds another layer. Soldiers could compel civilians to carry equipment for one mile (Matthew 5:41). The command to go two miles voluntarily subverts the system of coercion. Jesus is not endorsing passivity toward injustice but establishing a creative, non-retaliatory posture that refuses to mirror the aggressor's evil.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Matthew 5:39. The Greek text is stable across manuscript traditions; the only variation in English translations is the rendering of τῷ πονηρῷ as 'evil' (KJV, Darby, YLT) or 'an evil person' (WEB, BSB).
Reception History
The early church read this verse as a call to non-violence. Tertullian and Origen argued that Christians should not serve in the military because of this command. After Constantine, Augustine developed a just war tradition that limited the command to personal conduct, not the state's role in punishing evildoers. During the Reformation, Anabaptists took a literal, pacifist stance, while Reformed and Lutheran traditions (Calvin, Luther) allowed self-defense and police power. In modern times, the verse has been central to the civil rights movement (Martin Luther King Jr.) and debates about Christian pacifism. Many denominations agree that the verse condemns private revenge but differ on its application to self-defense and public justice.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Wrong Interpretation: The Jewish leaders had twisted God's law for judges (Exodus 21:24) into a permit for personal revenge. They used the law to settle scores.
- The Deeper Call: Jesus reclaims the law's spirit. Instead of repaying evil for evil, he calls disciples to entrust their cause to God and absorb wrong without retaliation.
- The Practical Examples: The cheek (insults), the cloak (legal disputes), and the mile (coercive demands) show how this works in real situations.
Five-point outline
- Context: The Old Testament law was given to judges, not as a personal right.
- Jesus' Authority: 'But I tell you...', Jesus speaks as the authoritative interpreter of God's will.
- The Principle: Do not resist an evil person in the sense of retaliation. Let God be the judge.
- The Illustrations: Turned cheek, given cloak, extra mile, each escalates grace rather than violence.
- The Motivation: We follow a Savior who endured the cross without threatening (1 Peter 2:23).
Illustration hooks
- A driver cuts you off and yells an insult. Your first instinct is to shout back or chase them down. Turning the other cheek means refusing to escalate, you stay calm and pray for them.
- At work, a coworker takes credit for your idea. You could expose them publicly. The command calls you to speak the truth with grace and not respond with equal malice.
- A neighbor builds a fence two feet onto your property. You could sue immediately. This verse doesn't forbid legal recourse, but it warns against a vengeful spirit and invites you to seek reconciliation first.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does 'turn the other cheek' mean I cannot protect my family from an attacker?
- What about standing up for justice? Am I supposed to let evil people win?
- How is this different from being a doormat?
Leading a Discussion
This passage forces us to examine our reflexes. When we are wronged, the world says 'fight back or get even.' Jesus offers a third way: absorb the wrong and respond with creative grace.
Discussion questions
- Read Matthew 5:38-42. What was the original purpose of 'eye for an eye' in the Old Testament?
- How had the people of Jesus' day corrupted that command?
- What does 'resist not evil' mean in the original language? The Greek term anthistēmi ('set against') suggests armed resistance or retaliation. How does that shape your understanding?
- Jesus lists three examples: a slap on the cheek, a lawsuit over a coat, and compulsory service. What do these all have in common?
- Barnes and Gill argue that self-defense is still permitted. Do you agree? Why or why not?
- How does Jesus' own response when struck on the cheek (John 18:22-23) help us interpret this verse? He did not literally offer the other cheek, but he did not retaliate.
- What is the hardest area of your life to apply this command? What would it look like to practice non-retaliation this week?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Leviticus 19:18 | “‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh. |
| I Samuel 24:10 | Behold, today your eyes have seen how Yahweh had delivered you today into my hand in the cave. Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is Yahweh’s anointed.’ |
| I Samuel 24:15 | May Yahweh therefore be judge, and give sentence between me and you, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of your hand.” |
| I Samuel 25:31 | that this shall be no grief to you, nor offense of heart to my lord, either that you have shed blood without cause, or that my lord has avenged himself. When Yahweh has dealt well with my lord, then remember your servant.” |
| I Samuel 25:34 | For indeed, as Yahweh the God of Israel lives, who has withheld me from harming you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, surely there wouldn’t have been left to Nabal by the morning light so much as one who urinates on a wall.” |
| I Samuel 26:8 | Then Abishai said to David, “God has delivered up your enemy into your hand today. Now therefore please let me strike him with the spear to the earth at one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.” |
| I Samuel 26:10 | David said, “As Yahweh lives, Yahweh will strike him; or his day shall come to die, or he shall go down into battle and perish. |
| I Kings 22:24 | Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, “Which way did Yahweh’s Spirit go from me to speak to you?” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke insists the Greek phrase should be translated the evil person, not evil in the abstract. Returning an outrage with another outrage makes the victim as wicked as the attacker. He adds that these commands chiefly apply to those persecuted for righteousness, who must leave judgment to God.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes argues that the original command was a judicial rule for magistrates, not a license for private revenge. Jesus did not repeal it for courts, but corrected the Jews who misapplied it to personal retaliation. Barnes also insists that Jesus's teaching on non-resistance applies to smaller wrongs, not to cases where life is in danger.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin draws a careful distinction: Christ forbids retaliating against injury, not preventing it through peaceful means. The command targets the impulse to repay evil with evil. Believers are called to patience that grows stronger as the attacks worsen, overcoming wrong with good rather than returning it.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
This commentator interprets "resist not evil" as a command not to seek retaliation. He notes that Jesus' own example in the Gospel of John imposes a limitation on the command to turn the
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
But I say vnto you, Resist not euill: but whosoeuer shall smite thee on thy right cheeke, turne to him the other also.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill distinguishes carefully: Jesus forbids private revenge against an injurious person, not resistance to sin or Satan. A person may lawfully defend himself or seek justice from civil authorities, but must not repay injury with injury. He contrasts Christ’s command with Jewish laws that demanded monetary fines for such offenses.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that Jesus does not abolish the law but fulfills it by carrying the letter to its spiritual depth. He refutes the scribes' carnal literalism with a deeper literality, showing that the letter was always a symbol of the spirit. Each commandment is traced back to the heart.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that the Greek word for "resist" means standing in battle array, striving for victory. Jesus forbids this kind of opposition. Rather than returning evil for evil or taking revenge, he says to turn the other cheek.