"You have heard it said": How (not) to resist ~ Matthew 5:38-48

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; ⁴⁰ and if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well; ⁴¹ and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. ⁴² Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. ⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. ~ Matthew 5:38-48

In the irreverent film Life of Brian, Monty Python’s spoof about the ministry of Jesus, an odd group of people are standing on the very edge of the crowd listening to Jesus deliver his sermon on the mount Due to their distance, they struggle to hear all that Jesus is saying and out of boredom they begin to bicker with one another until one of them shushes the others and asks, “What did he say?”

I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers,” a shepherd replies. 

“Ah, what's so special about the cheesemakers?” a woman asks. 

Her husband, the wise interpreter, says, “Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.”

Hmmmmm. And we hear Jesus say again, “You have heard it said . . .” But the question is, “What have you heard?”

Maybe you have it heard it said that Jesus said, “don’t fight back, accept shame, allow for abuse.” Maybe you have it heard it and said, “fat chance.” I’m not going to put up with this. You want to fight? Bring it and I give as good as I get.” Of course, both read the text the same way, that Jesus is suggesting a passive acceptance of injustice and oppression, and that the Christian response, for example, of “going the second mile” is a simple platitude which means nothing more than accepting injustice. 

But how does this make sense of Jesus’ ministry? Jesus obviously never behaved in any of these ways. He did resist evil doers but without violence. So whatever interpretation we have must make sense of Jesus’ teachings in light of his actions, his life and his death, which itself was a form of resistance. 

It’s important to begin by recognizing the traditional righteousness that Jesus quotes: Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. That traditional righteousness was not a relishing of violence or even a promoting of it, so much, as offering reciprocity. Its aim was to limit the kind of vengeance like we find at the end of the Cain and Abel story, “If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold” (Genesis 4:24). The traditional righteousness sought to cut through the vicious cycle of retaliation.

But Jesus pushes us farther than that. What is he saying in vs. 39? What are we NOT to do?

At the very least, Jesus is clearly saying don’t retaliate in kind. This statement is not a passive acquiescence to abuse but a clear, yet hard, teaching that one is not to hit back, sue in kind, etc. In this way, turning the cheek is not about allowing yourself to be a doormat but it does take off the table any response that would have you return what you have received. Clarence Jordan, the Christian activist, once paraphrased vs. 39 “When someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn both cheeks and run.” But is that the only interpretation? Is this only a teaching of non-retaliation? Well, in part that would depend on how we translate “don’t resist” and “evil” or “evil doer.” 

I would argue that it’s not “Don’t resist” but “Don’t resist in this way.” The Greek word “resist” often refers to violent rebellion or retaliation. Over 50 percent of its use in the OT (Septuagint) refers to opposition with physical force. Furthermore, the word “evil” in the Greek can be translated as “the evil one” or “by evil means.” Greek grammar makes either meaning equally acceptable. So a more accurate translation of Jesus’ teaching might be, “Don’t strike back at evil in kind.” Or, “don’t react violently against the one who is evil.” This seems to be Paul’s rendering of Jesus’ teaching (cf. Romans 12:17, 1 Thess. 5:15). By doing this we break the cycle of retaliation and open up the possibility for peace and reconciliation, even while resisting evil.

But apart from this literary interpretation, are there other reasons to imagine that Jesus’ words function as a sort of non-violent resistance to evil? Historically – yes.

During Jesus’ own life time, Pilate erected images of Caesar known as standards in Jerusalem, which broke Jewish law that didn’t permit any graven images in the city.

In response Jews rushed off to Pilate in Caesarea, and begged him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to respect their ancient customs. When Pilate refused, they fell prone all around his house and remained motionless for five days and nights.

The next day Pilate took his seat on the tribunal and summoned the mob that he was ready to give them an answer. Instead he gave a pre-arranged signal to the soldiers to surround the Jews in full armor, declaring that he would cut them to pieces unless they accepted the images of Caesar, nodded to the soldiers to bare their swords. At this the Jews as though by agreement fell to the ground in a body and bent their necks, shouting that they were ready to be killed rather than transgress the Law. Amazed at the intensity of their religious fervor, Pilate ordered the standards to be removed from Jerusalem forthwith.” Josephus, Antiquities

So here we have a historic example of resistance (A.D. 26) that was non-violent without being retaliatory that Jesus himself could have known about. So this nuances our understanding of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus might not be opposing resistance to evil per se but differentiating HOW one should oppose it. And that’s what leads us to our three brief examples which then represent imaginative and surprising responses that engage oppressive evil rather than merely refuse to simply respond in kind. 

Example One: “If any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” 

Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? 

We must remember that this is a right-handed-world – the right hand was the only hand that you could use because at that time the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. In some communities, even to gesture with the left hand could result in a penalty of exclusion and some form of penance (see The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QS 7). So, the only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the right hand. When we recognize this we begin to understand that we are talking about an insult, a way of belittling someone, and not a fist fight. The intention is not to injure with violence but humiliate or put someone in his or her place. So backhanding someone was a way of admonishing inferiors: Masters backhanded slaves, husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; and Romans, Jews. So we have here in one simple phrase a summary of a complex set of unequal relations in which retaliation would be suicidal. The only response was cowering submission. To turn the other cheek, however, created a dilemma for the would be slapper and robbed him of his power to humiliate. He can’t strike the left cheek in the same way because he would be using his left hand, which was a punishable offense. If he hits with a fist, according to Rabbinical sources, he’s basically acknowledging the lower person as an equal. So this was a way to engage without violence and yet oppose humiliation and poor treatment.

Example #2: “If anyone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat, too.”

The point is that the person who has borrowed money is being sued for his undergarment because he is so poor all he has left are his shirt and coat – literally, the clothes on his back. 

Now, the OT law actually envisioned just such a scenario and declared that taking someone’s coat was forbidden (Exodus 22:26-27, Deut. 24:12-13, cf. Amos 2:8). If you took a man’s coat in pledge for a loan you had to return it every night else what would he sleep in when it gets cold? So in Jesus’ teaching the greedy lender sues you for the only other piece of clothing you have, your shirt. Jesus counsels a shocking initiative: take off your coat and your shirt and give them both to the greedy person while you stand naked in the court. Such an act would have revealed the plaintiff’s greed and exposed an unjust system. Moreover, in Judaism, nakedness was taboo and shame fell not on the naked person but on the person viewing or causing the nakedness (Genesis 9:20-27).  But this stripping was more than punitive, it offered the creditor a chance to see, perhaps for the first time in his life, what his greed caused.

Example #3: “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.”

In the third example, Jesus’ is acknowledging a particular legal feature of the Roman Empire that among non-citizens in occupied territory, like Judea and Israel, a Roman soldier had the right to force a Jew to carry his pack for one mile. So the actual act referred to the oppression that an occupying force had over a conquered people. In that context, Jesus is not simply saying, “Do what he is forcing you to do, comply with oppression, and live with powerless resentment.” Instead, he is instructing his followers to take the initiative, and carry the pack further at their own volition. It shifts from resentful powerlessness to the power of our own surprising initiative, which might call our adversary to a new level of consciousness. We can almost imagine a scenario by which the disciple of Jesus carrying the pack further begins a conversation with the Roman soldier who is stunned by the act. Maybe the soldier asks why he is doing that which would lead to a conversation about Jesus, about the occupation and its impact on Jews, maybe even the soldier talking about his family and where there was only hatred we see the beginning of healing. 

So what do we learn?

Each of these examples includes an element of surprise and some subversive correction or naming of the hostility, domination, exclusion and injustice that characterize our world. They are meant to inspire an imaginative element of peacemaking. Each of these teachings aims to show us the way of deliverance as participation in the new things of God. Christians have always had to be creative as we seek justice while living peaceably with others. 

Paul expressed this creativity in Romans 12, where he argued that it meant we feed our enemies when they are hungry and give them something to drink when they are thirsty; to grieve with them when they grieve and rejoice with them when they rejoice. This does not mean we affirm everything our enemies do; Jesus often confronted Pharisees and others leaders injustices. It does mean, however, that we act in such a way that allows for our enemies conversion. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood Jesus perfectly, “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” But is this realistic? Does this interpretation have any teeth to it?

Story of Clarence Jordan’s daughter, Jan and the Klu Klux Klan (go the audio at mcchurch.org to hear the full story)

Of course, all of this is heading somewhere – the big reveal, the big surprise – the most striking element of Jesus’ teachings, vss. 43 and 44. It’s not simply that we face injustice with non-retaliatory resistance but that we act in such a way that shows that we are children of God by loving our enemies.

Now I could give you a powerful story, a funny anecdote, an examination of the Greek to make the point but I would rather do something else, say only one more thing: “Friends, he means it.” 

We need another Reformation that takes Jesus at his word with respect to violence and enemies. The issue is no longer, “what must I do in order secure my salvation?” (we go that!) but rather “What does God require of me in response to the needs of others?” It is not, “How can I be virtuous?” But, “How can I act in such way that demonstrates the love and justice of God?” Otherwise, our actions are simply about what secures our own purity in the eyes of God, and salvation is only about me, which is nothing less than a satanic temptation to die with cleans hands and a dirty heart.”

Friends, have you heard it said?