# A cheek or an eye?



## ServantofGod (Apr 16, 2006)

We all know the "turn the other cheek" concept. We also have an "eye for an eye". Both were established by God. Where is the line drawn where we go from a cheek, to self-defense? I know the meaning of both, "Eye for an eye", the punishment should match the offense. But does that allow for fighting back when being physichally attacked, or do we turn the other cheek and let them beat us up? "Turn the other cheek" would be if someone insults or offends you, don't respond, just let them do it. But does that also allow for physichall attacks also? Hence, "if someone slaps you on the cheek..."



O.K. When it comes to people attacking girls, rules don't apply, and I say a life for an eye.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 16, 2006)

Only magistrates return "eye for an eye." The Pharisee's twisted the law to justify acts of vengeance using that verse. But in context in the OT, only the appointed judge was allowed to issue the sentence of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. We never take justice into our own hands. Self-defence is just that, defendig ourselves from a life threatening situation. Turning the other cheek would probably not apply there, but refers more to suffering personal injury from slanderers or persecuters.


----------



## Herald (Apr 16, 2006)

I'm not sure on the physical attack side. All I know is how I am wired. If someone physically assaults me my given response is to defend myself and make them wish they didn't assault me. But more than likely I would just seek to get out of dodge without having to fight. The only exception would be if my family, someone close to me or someone who was defenseless was being assualted. At that point the avenger in me would rear his head and do whatever was necessary to protect the person(s) assaulted.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2006)

Here's how I look at it: if people are merely insulting you, you really should develop a thick skin, and not let small stuff bother you.

If they are attacking you to do you real harm, you have a duty to self-defense under the 6th commandment. This hold true for defending others when you have the duty to do so.

When someone attacks you, to harm you for your Christian testimony, they are attacking Christ-in-you. They are attacking the Son of God. Their real hostility is directed toward their Judge. And that's when we turn the other cheek, give our backs to the smiters, and our bodies to be burned. It will be Christ's victory--whether he walks with us unharmed in the midst of the firey furnace, or stands up to receive us if we are stoned to death. If we are martyred, our innocent blood is the seed of the church. If we are delivered, God receives the glory.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 20, 2006)

Good point C.M. I agree.

I heard someone say that Jesus told us to turn the other cheek but He didn't tell us what to do after someone hits us on the other cheek.

I believe that in the cultural context of the time, if someone were to hit you on your cheek with their right hand they were demeaning you and putting you on a lower level than them as if you were their slave. To turn the other cheek would mean that if they hit you again it would have to be with their left hand, which would put you back on their level again.


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 20, 2006)

Hello Ian,

I think Bruce covered the "turn-the-other-cheek" bits, but I thought I'd offer the following on the "eye/life" bits.

"eye for an eye" and "life for a life" are, I believe, among the most misinterpreted portions of scripture. They are invariably used as in contexts ranging anywhere from self-defense to vigilantism. To do so, I believe, it completely out of context and wrong.

Vigilantism is wrong because God has established magistrates to "carry the sword" in meting out justice on earth, and self-defense is acceptable under the passages Bruce has outlined. The eye-for-eye passages have nothing to do with self-defense. Let's take a look:

Exodus 21:24
Exodus 21:27
Leviticus 24:20
Deuteronomy 19:21

The point of eye-for-eye is that an offense must be punished (and/or repaid) proportionately. It is, I believe, where we get the legal concept of "the punishment must fit the crime". The context is offense->terms of repayment, crime->punishment. 

That's the beauty of Scripture - there are no contradictions, only limited understanding on our part.

I hope that helps!

dl


----------

