Are we to let people filled with hate kill us? Just so we can follow what Jesus said on the mount, when he said “whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also“ and “Do not resist the one who is evil.“… This is the verse many use to claim that if someone is attacking you, you are to let them, but that would be taking it out of context and completely ridiculous.
What people fail to understand is the context of things. If I were to stand and say, all the cars are red, that would not be factual, or would it? We look around and see that cars come in a variety of colors, but, what if I was standing in a warehouse full of red cars? Claiming all cars are red, would depend on the context of where I was, what I was looking at, or what the subject is. When Jesus said turn the other cheek, he was referring to the saying “eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”, he was talking about revenge and jealousy, not defense against someone trying to hurt or kill you, this is all about personal relationships. I took this from another article; ““Turning the other cheek”, “doing unto others”, and “loving your enemies” represented general principles for personal relationships. This is even more evident in that he uses the term “slap” “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also“. If we were supposed to just allow allow ourselves to be attacked, even killed without defending ourself, Jesus would not have used the word slap, he would rephrased the whole saying to be worded more like “if someone attacks you, let them”.
If Jesus were against people defending themselves, then why were his disciples armed? Why did Jesus instruct his disciples to have a sword? He went as far as to tell them if they didn’t have a sword, get one, if they had no money for one, they should sell their clothes to buy one. Luke 22:36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
The incident in the Garden shed’s even more light.
John 18:10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus.
Here is another view of John 18:10. Before the sword was drawn, Jesus was asked if they should defend themselves…
49 When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?
Jesus did not answer “No!”; he did not stop what was about to happen. He allowed what came next;
50 And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
It was after this incident, according to John, that Jesus stopped the violence, not by condemning it, but just by stating that what was done was enough.
51 But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.
Jesus could have said “no” before any of this happened. I believe this is significant, showing that defense is allowed. Even after the ear was cut off, he said “no more of this”, he could have said “none of this”. He could have condemned it after it happened. This shows that Jesus is in agreement with what had happened. The reason the self defense had to stop in this circumstance is because Jesus had to be taken, to accomplish what he came here for. But before he was taken away, he wanted everyone to see, that they had the right, the means and ability to defend themselves, but chose to go peacefully.
John 18:11 (KJV)
So Jesus said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?”
This verse reinforces what I just said, the reason to put the sword away was not because it’s wrong, it’s because Jesus had to be taken, to fulfill his purpose, not because it’s wrong to use the sword.