This set of antithetical parallels prohibits retaliation. Both verses are built around a provocation and a response. The Mosaic law specifies that the loss of an eye requires an equivalent loss—the eye of the one inflicting the first injury (Exod. 20:23–26; Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21).
Verse 39 spells out the gospel model, which has passed into common usage as “turning the other cheek.” Guelich explains: “The specific reference to the right cheek implies that one is slapped with the back of the hand, an action that was particularly degrading to a Jew. One’s recourse… in case of insult more than injury… would [be] to take legal action to gain recompense and vindication. According to the Mishnah the penalty for such damage was twice as severe. Therefore, in Matthew the one on the receiving end forgoes his right to legal action.” However, foregoing one’s right to retaliation does not necessarily explain “turning” the other cheek.
Jesus is not telling his listeners to submit to continued berating and beating; rather, it is an assertion of dignity, even of quiet defiance. The key is the statement that: “whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Assuming a right-handed assailant, the right cheek is slapped only with the back of the hand, a significant insult indicating the superior position of the one administering the slap. Turning the other cheek would require the slapper to administer an open-handed slap—a gesture between equals, not that of an inferior. Thus, the person turns the cheek to indicate equality even as he eschews retaliation. In the honor culture of the Mediterranean, such a step removed the shame but did not accelerate a potentially violent situation.
Palestine’s cultural context for this instruction was that of occupied territory, operating under a legal system imposed by the conqueror. Many would consider themselves more important or of higher rank than the peasants listening to Jesus. They could be Roman officers, soldiers, or citizens; or they could be other wealthy Jews. In any case, Jesus was speaking to real social tensions. In addition to spelling out the gospel rule for interpersonal relationships, he was also giving his listeners good survival advice.
Book of Mormon Context: The Nephites’ circumstances were quite different. They were not a conquered people. Indeed, their political organization was probably still tribal. Thus, the Old World context of superior/inferior, powerful/powerless was not the Nephites’ present reality, even though they had experienced it in the recent past.
Comparison: Luke 6:29 has a parallel saying: “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.” The similarities in language and ordering of elements (which continue past this verse) suggest that Luke is also reporting authentic Jesus sayings, though perhaps from a different occasion. Luke does not specify the right cheek, and the verb is not “slap” but “hit” or “smite.” In other words, Matthew describes an insult, Luke an assault. Both require that the offended person forego retaliation. The 3 Nephi version makes only the usual change from “saying” to “written.”