Like Button

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Hard Sayings - "Turn the Other Cheek"

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 him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matt. 5:38-42).
What could be clearer than that? Obviously Jesus is commanding complete pacifism. All Christians must, if they are to follow the teachings of Christ, be pacifists. They cannot join the military. They cannot engage in legal battles. They cannot defend themselves and their families and homes. In short, Christians, if they are to follow the clear teaching of Christ, are to be doormats.

If there was no more information present in Scripture, we would be forced to conclude that this is what Jesus is commanding here. Further, we would be forced to do it or actually stand in opposition to the Lord. Many Christians have held this position. Historically, much of the early church believed that it was a sin to be in the military. Even today there are such churches as the Quakers, the Amish, and the Mennonites that believe that the only Christian choice is pacifism. The position is not new nor is it untenable. But there is more information, and when we look at it, we will find we have a problem with this view.

God's original design included the military and self-defense. God routinely commanded and blessed war in the Old Testament (assuring us that the concept of a "just war" is real). God commanded that a new husband was not required to go to war (Deut. 24:5). David wrote, "He trains my hands for battle, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze" (2 Sam. 22:35). Face it; war was part of the Old Testament. And if we try to argue that the old was done away with, we have new questions to face in the New Testament. If pacifism is Christ's command, how do we explain the events in the Temple when He used a whip to clear it? Why would He command His disciples to buy weapons (Luke 22:36)? We find Cornelius, a centurion, who comes to Christ and nothing is mentioned about needing to leave the military. Paul says the the authorities bear the sword for good reason (Rom. 13:4). And if the command of Christ meant not to defend oneself at all, then Paul was a real mess when he defended himself against the Jews ... more than once (Acts 22; 24:10-21; 26). The argument is that Jesus clearly commands pacifism in Matt. 5, but if this is the case, He commands it against God's rules in the Old Testament and He and His apostles violate it. I would suggest that pacifism cannot be in view here, else we make Christ a sinner. Apparently we need to revisit Jesus's words here and find out what He did mean when He said, "Do not resist him who is evil." If Jesus did not mean that Christians must be pacifist doormats, what did He mean?

A lot of people have examined this question and come up with a lot of answers. Quite a few assure us that a strike on the right cheek from a right-handed person is a backhand insult, and this is a very specific instance. They conclude from this that turning the other cheek is either a demand for equality or allowing an insult and not at all about self-defense. That seems a bit obtuse to me. Let's try something simpler. What was the context?

Jesus starts in Matt. 5:17 by stating His overall direction in the things He is about to say. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Okay, clear enough. His goal is now to illustrate ways of fulfilling the Law. He does this in a series of statements that begin with "You have heard it said" followed by "But I say". He goes on in this manner to talk about murder and what it really includes, adultery and divorce, keeping promises, and this topic. What is this topic? What is He contrasting here with "You have heard it said"? "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you ..." (Matt 5:38-39). Now, the rule "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" represents a drastic reduction in acceptable response to evil from the world around them. As an example, a thief could have his hand cut off in the world around them, but God commands a more proportional response to a thief, including repayment of that which is stolen. The idea here is in regards to vengeance and justice. What should I do in retaliation to an injustice?

Hopefully I've planted a seed here, and you can begin to see where the rest is going, but let's look together. Note that Jesus did not speak of "whoever is going to slap you on your right cheek". The event occurred. He speaks about one who has already been forced to walk a mile. He is speaking of evil that already exists, not evil that might occur. He is speaking of the right retaliation to evil. In other words, Jesus is saying what Paul echoes when he says, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19).

I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage as saying "Never do any violence" because Jesus did violence. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Never defend yourself" because Paul defended himself. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Keep quiet about sin" because Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles all spoke out against sin. The New Testament is full of the notion of the militant Christian, standing firm (often using the same term, by the way, that Jesus used when He said "Do not resist evil"). I think the only possible conclusion here is that Jesus was speaking out against retaliation for evil -- vengeance. To contort this into the place where a husband, for instance, tells his wife, "You can't protect yourself from me because Jesus said not to" is a lie. To twist this to say we cannot defend ourselves is simply to ignore Jesus, His words, His life, and the rest of Scripture.

4 comments:

Samantha said...

I just have a really stupid question (I totally agree with your post btw):

If you are being persecuted and you do not stand up for youself, could it be that you are enduring the "persecution" and remaining quiet, storing up, for yourself, treasures in heaven?

I guess it solely depends on each situation??

Stan said...

I believe it depends on motivation. If my motivation is love, then it stores up treasures. If my motivation is self, then not.

FzxGkJssFrk said...

Stan, could you elucidate a bit more what you mean by "vengeance"? I'm not sure how going to war after the Pearl Harbor incident, for example, was not "retaliatory".

Stan said...

First, I'm not sure that the rules for individuals and the rules for governments are the same. As an obvious example, governments have the God-given right to execute criminals; individuals don't. Further, the government isn't "Christian" and, as such, I wouldn't expect them to follow Christ's teachings.

Second, I'm not sure I'd classify going to war after Pearl Harbor as "retaliatory". It was clear that the Japanese intended to harm America. The government has the duty to protect its citizens, so the government set out to put an end to the Japanese hostilities against Americans. That's not "retaliatory". That's self-defense.

Vengeance is trying to even the score (as "an eye for an eye" is evening the score). I believe Jesus was teaching us not to try to even the score; that was His job.