Book Review: Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics

Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation

By Graeme Goldsworthy / IVP Academic

In Gospel Centered Hermeneutics, Graeme Goldsworthy's argues that evangelical contributions often do not give sufficient attention to the vital relationship between hermeneutics and theology, both systematic and biblical.

Therefore, Goldsworthy moves beyond a reiteration of typical arguments to concentrate on the theological questions and presuppositions, and their impact on the interpretive process and on their impact of our articulation of the gospel. In doing so, he brings fresh perspectives on some well-worn pathways.

Part I examines the foundations and presuppositions of evangelical belief, particularly with regard to biblical interpretation. Part II offers a selective overview of important hermeneutical developments from the Patristic era to the present, as a means of identifying some significant influences that have been alien to the gospel. Part III evaluates ways and means of reconstructing truly gospel-centered hermeneutics. Throughout Goldsworthy aims to commend the much-neglected role of biblical theology in hermeneutical practice, with pastoral concern for the people of God as they read, interpret and seek to live by his written Word.

There were many observations and conclusions in this book that I agree with and some others that I did not. Most importantly, however, this is a book that challenged me to think and for that reason I highly recommend it. This is a book that needed to be written and Goldsworthy skillfully illustrates how the theological and philosophical presuppositions of Biblical interpreters influence their interpretations. He does a marvelous job of placing the task of the exegete in its broader context. He recognizes that to focus simply on rules and methods while ignoring the broader worldview issues related to epistemology and ontology gives us an insufficient understanding of what hermeneutics really involves.

Other works may have more detail regarding practical application of the principals of interpretation but regarding the broader issues involved with Biblical interpretation this is the best thing I have read in nearly a decade. He too quickly (in my opinion) dismisses a plain hermeneutic for Old Testament passages in favor of a covenantal view of redemptive history but a careful consideration of his reasoning is something that those who hold other views will be challenged to respond to. Some of the material in the book may be difficult for those who do not have familiarity with certain theological and philosophical issues but it is written in a way that would allow it to perhaps serve as a launching pad into further study into those areas.

I highly recommend this book to any advanced student or any person who is interested in the relationship between theology/philosophy and Biblical interpretation. Like any human book it must be read critically but it is an excellent work and deserves to be widely read by those interested in the subject.

Why I am a Compatibilist

In the previous article I discussed Jonathan Edwards' explanation of how divine sovereignty and human responsibility can be compatible. Edwards argument is important because it demonstrates that the teaching of the scripture that God is in control, and also that He justly holds people accountable for their actions, does not involve a logical contradiction. His arguments, and others like it, however are not the basis for why I am a compatibilist. I am a compatibilist because I believe that the Bible teaches it.

The basic question comes down to whose will is determinative for whatever events occur. Is it human choices and intentions that determine what happens or is it God’s choices and intentions? There are many Biblical examples that I think require us to answer that question in a way that asserts that both are the case. As the old theologians used to say “God works through means”. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

The Joseph Story (Genesis 37:18-28, 45:1-8, 50:15-20)

Notice the pronouns in the first part of this story. The text is clear that it is the brothers who are making these choices. If we ask who decided that Joseph would be sold to the Ishmaelites we have to answer based upon this section that his brothers did.

They saw him from afar, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him. They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits. Then we will say that a fierce animal has devoured him, and we will see what will become of his dreams.” But when Reuben heard it, he rescued him out of their hands, saying, “Let us not take his life.” And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him”—that he might rescue him out of their hand to restore him to his father. So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the robe of many colors that he wore. And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it. Then they sat down to eat. And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him. Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt. (Genesis 37:18-28 ESV)

When the story picks up a few chapters later we are given another perspective. This time we see the intention of God introduced. In fact, in the same sentence we see two different wills connected to the same event. Joseph says that his brothers sold him into Egypt but then he says that it was God who did it. He emphasizes God’s providence in their actions by telling his brothers “it was not you who sent me here, but God”. It is clear from the overall narrative that this statement is not intended as a denial of the fact that the brothers had sent him but rather his way of emphasizing that God’s purposes are fulfilled even through their sinful actions. Even their rebellious choices end up being part of the means God uses to bring about His ends.

So Joseph said to his brothers, “Come near to me, please.” And they came near. And he said, “I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 45:4-8 ESV)

As we reach the end of the narrative the brothers clearly understand that they are responsible for what happened to Joseph. They did not, however, understand Joseph’s faithfulness and trust in God’s providence that he shows in his famous statement “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good”. I have heard many teachers and preachers explain this verse by saying that God used the actions of brothers to bring about His purposes as if God simply made the best out of what happened. This is not, however, what the verse says. Joseph says that “God meant it”. If we ask the question “who is responsible for Joseph ending up in Egypt” we must give two answers. The brothers are responsible but so is God. God didn’t force the brothers to do what they did, their choices were their own. They did what they desired to do and chose according to their own sinful and selfish natures. Their choices, however, were part of the larger plan of God to provide for His people.

When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he died: ‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:15-20 ESV)

The Crucifixion (Is. 53:10, Acts 2:22-23, 4:26-28)

We see a similar dynamic with regard to the crucifixion of Jesus. The Bible tells us that it was the plan of God that Christ would be sacrificed. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born the prophet Isaiah revealed God’s intentions in the death of His Son.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; He has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:8-10 ESV)

Peter, in his well known sermon recorded in Acts 2, also touches upon both the human and the divine intention when discussing the death of Christ. He makes it clear that human choices led to the death of Christ but like Joseph’s story this is also part of the plan that God has willed to bring about.

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:22-23 ESV)

Again in chapter 4 when Peter and John are released from custody and are praising God both the human and the divine wills and intentions involved in the crucifixion are mentioned again.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:26-28 ESV)

The Bible teaches that there are two distinct purposes at work in the death of Christ. There are the sinful acts of human beings but also there is the plan of God. God did not force these people to do what they did; they acted according to their own desires and their own motives. There was, however, another purpose and another cause of these events. If we ask who determined that Jesus would be crucified we must provide two answers if we are to be consistent with the teaching of the Bible.

We see in both of these examples that God’s plans infallibly come to pass. He determines what will happen but He does so in a way that does not violate the ability of people to act according to their own desires. To deny the human intention and agency in bringing about these events is to deny the Biblical witness that those people were responsible for those choices and that they were indeed real choices. If we deny the divine intention then we deny the Biblical witness to God’s purposes in history and perhaps His sovereignty as well. These people made choices that proceeded from their own desires, their own natures, from who they were and God working through them according to their nature accomplishes His own ends. Therefore in these examples we see an illustration of what Edwards was talking about. God is in control and His sovereignty means the outcomes are certain even though people are making free choices for which they can justly be held accountable. There are many other Biblical examples that we could have looked at but these are the most well known and I think they are sufficient to make the point. Compatibilism is not just a speculative philosophical position but is a conclusion based upon a careful reading of the Biblical text.

On Free Will

I have been asked many times whether I think the Bible teaches that God is completely sovereign or if it teaches that people have free will. I usually respond that the Bible teaches both. That answer usually frustrates people. Most people recognize that if the Bible is truly God’s word it cannot contain real contradictions and they therefore conclude that it has to teach either one or the other. How, they ask, could God be just in holding people accountable for actions that He ultimately planned or determined?

Many assume that God being in control of all things and people being truly free are incompatible. As Christians, however, we believe that the Bible is true and it is the Bible that is our ultimate authority. The Bible clearly teaches that God is completely sovereign and in control. It also teaches that people are responsible for their actions and that God will hold them accountable for what they do. The logical compatibility of those truths is therefore a necessity for a rationally coherent Biblical theology.

The Bible simply asserts and assumes these truths as facts and does not explain the details of how they can be logically reconciled so various theologians have offered potential solutions. The best attempt I have read is Jonathan Edwards work The Freedom of the Will. Edwards explained that all choices were both determined and free. His observations and insights into the nature of willing allows for a logically consistent compatibilism between divine sovereignty and moral accountability. Since this issue has come up a couple of times in recent conversation and since Edwards’ writing is fairly dense philosophical and theological argument I thought it might be helpful to summarize some of the key points that he makes.

Most people think of free will as the ability to make alternative choices in such a way that the will is neutral and can make a choice either for or against any particular alternative. Edwards, however, shows that the will never has this kind of freedom. He points out that “will” is not so much a noun as it is a verb. The will is not a thing but it is rather the mind choosing. He then examines the basis upon which the mind makes choices. He demonstrates that a mind will choose (or will) that which is the greatest desire acting upon it at the time of the choice. This is very important because it implies that the will is never neutral. There is always a reason why a choice is made. A particular mind cannot choose against its own desires. A mind cannot want to not do what it most wants to do at the same time.

Someone may object and point out that people often do things they do not want to do. The reality is, however, that what people choose to do is in fact what it is they wanted to do at the moment they made the choice. For example, I have met many alcoholics who hate their addiction. They genuinely do not want to continue with that lifestyle. The fact is, however, that at the moment that they decide to pick up the bottle their desire for that short term pleasure is greater than their desire to refrain from drinking. They may seriously regret it later but in that moment the thing they most wanted to do was to take a drink. Although those desires may be so strong that one could say they were not free the fact is that they were choosing according to their own desire. Another example is if your boss asked you to do something that you absolutely did not want to do but you ended up doing it anyway. Even though everything in you might have been resistant to doing what you were asked, if you do it, it is still true that your greatest desire at that moment was to comply. At that moment your desire to keep your job or not have a problem with your boss was greater than your desire to resist. Even though it may not be a choice you would have made in other circumstances, all things being considered, it is what you wanted to do.

The will is therefore always determined by the greatest desires acting upon it at the moment of the choice. This means that every choice is determined by our nature and character. Edwards, however, also argues that our wills are indeed free. They are not free with regard to the power of contrary choice as so many people assume but they are truly free in that they do what it is they wish to do. His point is that so long as a person is not forced to do something against their will or is not restrained from doing something they willed to do then their actions freely proceed from them and so they are justly held responsible for them. Edwards argues that if you do what you want to do then your choices are free even if what you did was what God planned for you to do and you are still justly responsible because they were choices that came unimpeded from your own desires. 

By demonstrating that choices can be both free and also determined Edwards lays a logical philosophical foundation for understanding how to reconcile the Bible’s assertion that God is sovereign and also its assertion that He also holds people accountable for their actions. This view of freedom does not require that people have an equal ability to actualize multiple future realities in order to be free. If God works through beings according to their natures He can determine what will happen without overruling the ability of creatures to choose that which they wish to do. If the actions of those creatures are expressions of their own desires then they are justly held morally accountable for them even if they could not have done otherwise.

The objections to divine sovereignty tend to flow not from Biblical passages that teach that people possess the power of contrary choice (there aren’t any) but rather from a question about God’s justice in holding people accountable for choices that they were certain to make. Edwards’ argument provides a logically consistent explanation that fits with the two plain assertions of the scripture (God’s sovereignty & man’s responsibility). Much ink has been spilled on this subject but Edwards’ argument remains the most compelling work on the subject that I have read. Obviously the summary above barely scratches the surface of the overall argument. If you are interested in reading the entire thing you can get a free copy HERE. 

Bible Study Tips: Applying the Neglected Passages

Up to this point most of the bible study tips have focused on things that to help with the observation or interpretation phase of study. Today I want to introduce a tip that applies primarily to the application phase.

It is sometimes difficult to apply lessons from texts that are not obviously doctrinal. Those texts, however, do provide important truths that we should pay attention to. Sections such as the “begat’s” for example, are rarely studied and if they are read at all they are skimmed quickly. We should recognize, however, that by skipping over these texts we are depriving ourselves of some of the means that the Lord has provided for our development.

Paul instructs Timothy that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV) and he reminds the believers in Rome that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4 ESV). Therefore we do not want to ignore or neglect any of the scripture.

Our example will be from the second chapter of the book of Ezra which is one of those passages that is often skimmed through. (I didn’t include the entire chapter out of copyright considerations)

            Now these were the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia. They returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own town. They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: the sons of Parosh, 2,172. The sons of Shephatiah, 372. The sons of Arah, 775. The sons of Pahath-moab, namely the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,812. The sons of Elam, 1,254. The sons of Zattu, 945. The sons of Zaccai, 760. The sons of Bani, 642. The sons of Bebai, 623. The sons of Azgad, 1,222. The sons of Adonikam, 666. The sons of Bigvai, 2,056. The sons of Adin, 454. The sons of Ater, namely of Hezekiah, 98. The sons of Bezai, 323. The sons of Jorah, 112. The sons of Hashum, 223. The sons of Gibbar, 95. The sons of Bethlehem, 123. The men of Netophah, 56. The men of Anathoth, 128. The sons of Azmaveth, 42. The sons of Kiriath-arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, 743. The sons of Ramah and Geba, 621. [THE LIST CONTINUES TO NEARLY THE END OF THE CHAPTER]

What are we to do with a list like this? How often would we use this passage to instruct, encourage, or rebuke one another? Probably not often, but by asking a few basic questions about this passage we will see that there is valuable teaching here. First, we begin with the basic journalistic questions so we can understand the biblical passage. We then follow up with a few questions about the similarities between those in the biblical narrative and ourselves.

1. Who are these people?

We know from the text that these people are “the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia.” That is to say that they are the descendants of Jews who were taken from their land by the Babylonians. We also see that they have maintained their genealogies. They have not fully assimilated into the society of their captors but have continued to be a distinct minority with its own identity.

2. What are they doing?

They are returning to their ancestral homeland. They are gathered together to go back to Judea and if we read a bit ahead we see that they intend to rebuild the temple and reestablish the ceremonial worship of God according to the Law.

3. When is this happening?

This is happening about 70 years after their ancestors were taken into captivity. The Babylonians, who had conquered their land, had now come under the rule of the Persians. Just as promised ahead of time through the prophet Jeremiah the Persian king is allowing them to return.

4. Where is this happening?

They are moving from Mesopotamia to Judea.

5. How is this happening?

If we back up a bit in the book of Ezra we see that king Cyrus had issued a decree: “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem. And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.” (Ezra 1:2-4 ESV)

6. Why is this happening?

For these kinds of texts the “why” is often one of the most important questions. In this case we find the answer back in the first chapter. “In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing” (Ezra 1:1 ESV)

7. How is the condition of the people in the passage similar to our own?

In bible study the focus of this question should always be in a redemptive context. We are really asking how are these fallen people in circumstances similar to us. In this case we see that they are God’s people who were in a kingdom that was not their home and were longing to be back in their homeland. They are preparing to return.

8. What does this passage reveal about God’s character?

This passage shows at least two important things. First, it shows that God keeps His promises. These people are returning home in fulfillment of a promise that God had made. Second, it shows that God is sovereign because He worked through all the various circumstances to ensure that His prophesies would be fulfilled.

There are many other questions that could be added. Basically they would focus on two categories. First, what is similar or different about us and the people in the text? Second, what does the text reveal about God. Just with these two, however, we see that the second chapter of Ezra is in fact a doctrinal and encouraging passage.

This list of names (that most people skip) is a testimony to the trustworthiness of God, that He has the power to bring about His ends, and keeps His promises. What is more we recognize that we are also a people exiled from home in a place that is often hostile to us but have the promise of God that He will protect us and that, if faithful, we will return home to be with Him. We can be encouraged not just in an abstract sense (though that would be sufficient) but also because we have the very names as evidence that the Lord has kept similar promises in the past. Our hope is in a Lord who keeps His promises and does not abandon those who remain faithful to Him.

By taking some time to ask a few basic questions we can find relevant teaching and application in every part of the scripture, even those that seem to be rather distant from our own circumstances. It just takes a little bit of thought and a few well placed questions. As a teacher of mine used to say, “When you come across a passage that seems a bit dry you can usually make it less dry by applying a bit of perspiration.” I pray that the Lord would continue to bless you in your studies.

My Thoughts are With You

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” (James 5:16)

It is a great blessing when we go through any kind of adversity or trial that our brothers and sisters in the faith are praying for us. When a Christian says “my prayers are with you” they are letting you know that they recognize that God has the power to intercede on your behalf. They are communicating to you that you should trust God to do so. They are also demonstrating faith that God will honor His promises to hear our prayers. There is tremendous power in prayer. By praying we are appealing to the sovereign power of God to do what we recognize we cannot do.

Lately, however, I have noticed that many people these days are saying things like “my thoughts are with you” or “sending good thoughts your way”. This is one of those areas where there is a huge gap between those who have a relationship with the living God and those who do not. While I recognize that it is a polite and thoughtful thing to tell someone that you are thinking of them it does absolutely nothing to address the underlying issue. It is simply a recognition that someone feels bad that you are dealing with some kind of trial. The thoughts of others cannot change our circumstances nor can they give us the strength to endure them beyond what was already within our psychological capacity. The believer on the other hand has access to the phenomenal power of God who can either resolve the issue or provide the strength for us to grow from it.

For His own reasons God does not always heal us or deliver us from particular circumstances but He always has the power to do so. When I am going through adversity I do not want acknowledgement from others who are just as helpless as I am. I want to know that my brothers and sisters are interceding with my Father, King, and Savior who has already demonstrated His love and care for me. As a believer, if I must suffer, I do so in the knowledge that my suffering has a purpose and is itself accompanied by the benevolent guidance of God. What a privilege that is. The unbeliever is sadly without that hope. The thoughts of people, good or not, cannot change that.

Every time I hear about a person suffering some tribulation and I then hear someone say that “their thoughts are with them” I am reminded of Paul’s words in Ephesians.

“…remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12)

I then thank God that He has saved me. If you are a Christian consider using these opportunities as a way to share the hope that is within you. Tell people that you are praying for them (make sure you do it if you say you will). Some may not think it will do any good and others may even ask you not to. Most people, however, genuinely appreciate it and I have found it often opens the door for further discussion about faith down the road. Even if it doesn’t, it is an expression of your own faith.

Dawkins Spoof

If you have  ever read anything by Richard Dawkins or heard him speak then this is for you. Admittedly it is a bit sophomoric but hey it is getting late and it made me laugh. I thought I would share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HL3kfDmHL5g&noredirect=1#!

Unhelpful Answers: Jesus as Universal Pacifist

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  (Matthew 5:38-39 ESV)

There are many Christians who understand those words to mean that Christians are to passively undergo abuse regardless of the situation. How does this relate to our responsibility to protect our families and our own lives? Some teachers make a distinction between active defense (i.e. fighting back) and passive defense (i.e. locking our doors) but when we look closely at that distinction it becomes rather problematic to apply practically.

While some use this verse to support universal pacifism and see willingness to do so as a hallmark of faith we must be careful about establishing whole doctrines on single verses. I believe that closer examination will show that using this verse to support universal pacifism is inappropriate.

Jesus begins this teaching with the phrase ““You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you…” Some people understand these words to mean that Jesus is giving a new teaching and that He is somehow superseding the law with a superior ethical standard. Jesus, however, makes it clear that He is not abolishing or changing the Law that was delivered through the prophets.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

(Matthew 5:17-18 ESV)

The phrase “you have heard” is not a reference to the law itself but rather to the way it was being taught. Jesus is responding to teachers who were taking the word of the law out of context and misleading people. The general issue was that the law was being taught as if it were a series of regulations that, if kept, would make people righteous in God’s sight. This was never the intention of the law (c.f. Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16) and is why Jesus says in verse 20 “…unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is making it clear that conformity to outward regulation cannot make people righteous because they are by nature sinful.

In this particular case it seems that the Pharisees were misapplying one of the penalties of the law. In the law an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was a sentencing guideline to be applied by the judicial authorities after a conviction resulting from the Jewish legal process. Its purpose was actually to protect against revenge driven sentences and ensure that punishments were proportional to the crime. The Pharisees had apparently distorted the teaching by making it a personal standard of retribution that was never intended in the law.

If we look closely at the example that Jesus gives when teaching on this we may also notice something that is often missed. Jesus specifically mentions being hit on the right cheek. This is interesting since most people are right handed. If Jesus is speaking here of being punched in the face by someone who is trying to do great bodily harm  it is much more likely for them to be struck on the left cheek. If, however, Jesus was talking about a backhanded slap then the detailed reference to the right cheek makes sense. If He is referring to a slap rather than a punch then his admonition to turn the other cheek takes on a different light.

A slap of this sort is generally not intended to cause great harm but rather is intended to humiliate. To be slapped in the face is an affront to ones honor and is a bold insult. The context where these verses appear, the fact that Jesus is addressing the personal application of a legal standard, and this insight into the type of physical aggression all point to the fact that Christ was talking about retaliation and vengeance in this passage and not about defending oneself when in great bodily danger. Rather, He is explaining that we are not to engage in the kind of tit for tat retaliatory responses that escalate into feuds. We are not to see challenges to our honor and personal slights as a reason for getting even the way the world does. It is the same point that Paul makes in his letter to the Romans:

“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”  (Romans 12:17-21 ESV)

In neither Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 nor Paul’s words in Romans is there any command that we do not defend ourselves from immediate danger. There is a distinction between a necessary defensive response and a vengeful one. In the book of Exodus the law governing the protection of ones home gives us interesting insight into that very distinction.

“If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”     (Exodus 22:2-3 ESV)

Notice that this law establishes for the protection of both the thief as well as the victim. The defender has a right to defend themselves and their property and yet has no right to respond vengefully. If they are startled in the dark they are able to respond as they see necessary. However; if the opportunity exists for them to identify the thief and go to the authorities they are required to do this and are not free to respond with deadly force. The ability of people to defend themselves and for restitution to be made is protected; however, they have a responsibility to assess the situation. If the circumstance was such that the case could be taken to the proper authorities (the thief can be identified) this is what should be done. The property owner did not have the right to take the life of the intruder.

The expectation that people may defend themselves from immediate and severe bodily harm is not just found in the Old Testament. Consider the instructions Jesus gave to His disciples prior to his arrest.

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”    (Luke 22:35-38 ESV)

Jesus tells His followers to sell their cloaks and purchase swords. Many commentators understand this in a spiritual rather than a literal sense but there are a few reasons to believe that He is speaking literally. First, He begins by referencing previous instructions that He had given regarding knapsacks, moneybags, and sandals. Those were literal instructions and so it seems reasonable that these are literal as well. Also, after these instructions the disciples show Him that they already have two swords and Jesus replies that “it is enough”. These were literal swords and Jesus did not correct them as He had done so many times before when they misunderstood something He had said.

Notice that the disciples already were carrying swords. We know that these swords were not used offensively so we may assume that they were carried as defensive weapons. Jesus did not rebuke them for having them but rather gives his approval by saying “it is enough”.  Much is made of His later rebuke of Peter for using his sword but that is a completely different circumstance. First, Jesus intended to go to the cross and fulfill the scriptures and secondly Peter did not use his sword for personal protection. The guards had been sent by those in authority, they were not thieves or robbers.

In Matthew 5 Jesus is clarifying the teaching of the law and is not establishing a requirement for universal pacifism. We are to trust in God and His ultimate justice in the face of personal indignities and not engage in vengeful retaliation. This does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves and our families against an illegal, direct, and immediate threat to an extent sufficient to remove the threat.