Verse explainer

What does Matthew 5:39 really mean?

Not a command to be a doormat — it's a call to refuse the cycle of private revenge, even at personal cost.

KJV

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.

BSB

But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;

The plain meaning

Jesus is speaking inside the Sermon on the Mount (vv. 38-42), where he reframes the lex talionis — the "eye for an eye" principle of proportional legal justice (v. 38). His target is private retaliation, not every form of self-defense or legal recourse. A slap on the right cheek in the first-century Jewish world was typically delivered with the back of the hand — a calculated insult meant to degrade, not a blow in a fight. Turning the other cheek does not mean inviting further violence passively; it means refusing to be drawn into the cycle of personal vengeance. The surrounding verses reinforce this: give your cloak too (v. 40), go the second mile (v. 41), lend without demanding return (v. 42). The pattern is absorbing the cost of another's hostility rather than repaying it in kind.

The common misreading

"Turn the other cheek" means Christians must never defend themselves, oppose injustice, or use any force in any situation. This reading turns a targeted instruction about personal revenge into a blanket pacifism the text never asserts. Three things narrow what Jesus is actually forbidding. First, the context is the "eye for an eye" legal principle (v. 38) — Jesus is correcting the use of that legal standard as a private license for retaliation, not abolishing every form of defense or justice. Second, John Gill and other careful readers note that seeking civil redress is not ruled out — what is ruled out is personal payback. Third, the blow on the right cheek in Jesus's world was a backhanded insult, a dignity attack, not a life-threatening assault — the scenario is about honor-and-shame cycles, not armed violence. Jesus's own behavior at his arrest confirms the reading: when struck, he challenged the blow with a question (John 18:22-23) rather than submitting in silence or retaliating. The command is to break the chain of personal vengeance and absorb the cost of another's hostility — a radical, costly posture, but not a command to surrender all moral agency.

What the commentators say

John Gillearly 18th c. · PD

Gill is careful to limit the command: it forbids private revenge, not every form of self-protection. A man may lawfully defend himself and seek redress through the civil magistrate — what is banned is taking personal retaliation into one's own hands, repaying an injury with the same injury. Turning the other cheek is to be read comparatively: it is better to bear the affront than to seek revenge.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown19th c. · PD

JFB points to Jesus's own conduct when struck during his trial (John 18:22-23) as the best commentary on the verse. Jesus did not literally offer the other cheek — he questioned the blow — yet he did not retaliate. The emphasis is on a prepared, meek disposition that refuses to repay indignity with indignity, not on a mechanical, literal physical posture.

The word behind it

ἀντιστῆναι antistēnai

"To resist" or "to set oneself against" — the aorist infinitive of anthistēmi, from anti (against) + histēmi (to stand). The word is used for active, forceful opposition. Its use here defines what is forbidden: standing up against the evil person in kind, through counter-force or personal revenge. It does not mean passivity toward all evil, since the same New Testament vocabulary elsewhere commands resisting the devil (James 4:7).

Related verses