There is something that has fascinated me in my long study of this topic: the lack of variety in the Bible verses used to lay the foundation for a defense of a nonresistant belief.
Many of us are familiar with the most common ones quoted:
“You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13, ESV)
“… if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39b, ESV)
“… love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:44, ESV)
In the previous post, [https://warrior4thewounded.home.blog/2020/04/05/nonresistance-part-2-justice/], I talked about the distinction I see between killing (as in murder) and justice, which pretty much covers the 10 Commandments reference. So in this post, I will dive into the turning the other cheek principle while we look at the Matthew passage.
As I read over the entire Bible in a short while and spent several weeks reading one Gospel after the other, I was struck by a few simple questions:
What does Jesus’ actual life – words as well as actions – say about nonresistance?
Is there any possibility that those “popular” nonresistant verses are sometimes used as the only context for a belief that they were not intended to be solely the basis of?
What does it actually mean to live a “turning the other cheek” lifestyle?
When discussing the topic of nonresistance, the New Testament references in Matthew may be the most important verses of all, since a lot of Anabaptists would really push the “new covenant replaces the old covenant” agenda. So let’s make sure we actually know what we are referencing.
We will begin with the Matthew 5:38-42 passage, which is a small section labeled “Retaliation” in my ESV Bible.
“You have heard that it was said ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’; but I say unto you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
The other parallel passage found in the NT would be Luke 6:29-30, as part of the “Love Your Enemies” section.
“To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from one who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Now, before I say anything about what this NT passage seems to be saying in context, let’s go back to the “eye for an eye” Old Testament verses referenced by Jesus.
>>>>>
Exodus 21:23-25 (ESV): But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Leviticus 24:19-20: If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.
Deuteronomy 19:21: Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
I find it so weird to study these Old Testament references in context, because for some reason I can’t seem to remember any message on nonresistance ever doing this. [It could be that my memory is just bad, but on the other hand the references are unique enough I feel like I should remember…]
The Exodus passage is talking about what should happen when fighting guys happen to hit a pregnant woman, causing her baby to arrive. [Why the world did God even have to make a rule for this??! Take it outside, man!! Why are you even fighting in the same room as the pregnant lady?!] This little paragraph is stuck into a whole entire section concerning laws in dealing with slaves. So possibly it was said in reference to slaves fighting in confined quarters where innocent people would get injured? Who really knows. But anyway, it seems to quite possibly be said in context of “property” since that’s what the child seems to be regarded as.
The Leviticus passage seems to stand on its own. However, it is sandwiched in a story about a half-Israelite boy who blasphemed “the Name” while fighting an Israelite man. God included the eye for eye talk while handing down judgement about anyone who blasphemes.
The Deuteronomy passage is written in regards to false witnesses. God proclaimed that whatever a false witness wished to have happened to his brother, is what should be done to him. [what’s that saying about Karma? :D]
So. What I questioned as I studied the context of where the “eye for an eye” phrase came from, is how did Matthew 5:38 become such a solid pillar for a complete nonresistant stance when it comes to a belief of “no taking a human life, ever”? Because here’s the weird thing – in Leviticus, both before and after the “eye for an eye” verse, there are separate verses targeting the consequence of taking a life. This suggests to me that when Jesus mentioned the “eye for an eye”, He was more likely referring to the whole concept of physical retaliation for physical hurt, rather than specifically targeting the subject of murder. It just seems logical to me that if He was saying “I want you to remove/ignore the consequences for murder“, He would have just outright said that and referred to Leviticus 24 verse 17 or 21 instead. Because killing someone is a lot more serious than slapping or punching them, right? It wouldn’t be like God at all to make such a “mistake” in His OT reference to a “wrong verse”. [I am absolutely up for a discussion on this, so please correct me if you disagree. :)]
But ok. Enough with the time travel back into the OT. Now, before y’all go all machine-gun on me for laying a foundation for the context of nonresistance on the sandy soil of the Old Law [note the sarcasm], let’s go back to the Matthew passage itself and look at that context all on its own. [good luck with ignoring that now-nagging context of the dear babies being born cross-eyed and with clubbed feet and crippled hands, just because some brawling brutes accidentally hit their poor little pregnant mama]
>>>>>
“You have heard that it was said ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’; but I say unto you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
-Matthew 5:38-42
Really, I feel like the passage pretty much speaks for itself. But I guess we are here to think and dissect, so I’ll keep talking (typing) about context. [sigh. my hands grow weary]
Once again, I find it odd that if Jesus was specifically referencing how to react in situations of intentional murder, He didn’t actually say that. What does a slap on the cheek or having your Gucci coat stolen have to do with the crazy gunman committing mass murder at a school? Facing someone in court trying to take your belongings or the sibling asking for money you know they’ll never return, just isn’t on the same level as staring down a murderer in the eye.
I also find it to be very telling that Jesus DID already address the issue of killing in this very chapter, back in verse 21. He since moved on through other subjects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All that contextual study of the “eye for an eye” reference landed my heart at a very unexpected third conclusion: our favorite Matthew 5:38 verse is not, in fact, referencing specifically how we should react to a killer.
So. Wow. If you’re feeling anything like me, it may be that you just saw an entire pillar of your belief system crumble to dust. And maybe you even now look at me through the haze as the terrorist who planted a bomb, with the intent to destroy you/your faith/Anabaptism/nonresistance at its core.
But wait, please, for a moment longer. Just because I dug down to seemingly find the foundation of Anabaptist nonresistance is mostly made up of a red herring (a philosophy term for inconsistent arguments), does not mean that building a new pillar on top of that red herring to disprove nonresistance will bring a better resolve. That is not my intent.
Rather than using this red herring episode as an excuse to answer the taking a life to avenge/save lives question and focusing on the ultimate debate of what would you do if…?, why don’t we take a Jesus moment and take it past our own human argument and reach for the heart of Jesus throughout this entire chapter of Matthew.
First, let’s look at the verses 21 -22 that do address the issue of killing: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be liable to judgement.’ But I say unto you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says ‘You fool!’ will be liable to hell fire.”
It’s easy to claim I would never kill someone. But how seriously do we take Jesus’ words about anger? Like really? Jesus states here that far beyond a murderous act itself, just the act of anger is liable to the same judgement of murder. And sure, we’ve all heard sermons about controlling our anger…
But a side word to all the fathers as an example of how important this really is: how seriously does it strike you in the heart to realize that when you provoke your children to anger (Eph. 6:4), the same judgement as murder is involved in the eyes of our holy God? Just as you would be charged by the law with accessory to manslaughter if you goaded your child to commit murder, just so does God judge you for your part in provoking them to anger.
Wow. Jesus never sets the bar low, does He? ๐ We see here that as always, rather than replacing the complicated laws of the OT with “easier” NT phrases, He in fact goes far beyond the simple outward control of physical actions and cuts into our very motives and heart.
Now, let’s go back to the original question of verses 38 – 42: what does it mean to “turn the other cheek”?
What would it look like to live a lifestyle of turning the other cheek, and giving your cloak to the man who robs you?
Do we succeed in that?
It might be easy when the boy in Sunday school steals your child’s candy and you tell your children to show love in return. But what about when the salesman purposely sells you a car worth far less and with many more problems than he claimed? And…now that same man has come to buy a shed from you. Will all men see that you are a living example of Jesus by the way you graciously offer to give him a discount for being a veteran? …And ladies, when Karen* is forever allowing her chickens loose into your yard where they leave a mess – and then comes demanding you pay for the one your dog chased off your property because “it’s now mentally unstable and won’t lay eggs anymore”: will you deliver her some fresh cinnamon rolls next time you bake?
What does it really mean to claim to live a nonresistant lifestyle? A life where we allow others to “do us wrong”, mistreat us, and take advantage of us – and all we do is just shower love in return.
Ah, us wonderful hypocrites.
There’s that one verse – yes, that particular one we like to brush away – that says we will be known by our love.
And yet, what are we so often known for?
Church politics. Church cliques. Church “shunning”. Church splits. Churches judging. Churches name-calling. Churches telling the sinner to come back after he’s been washed. [Tell me, if you’re the source of the fountain, where else is he supposed to get clean?]
Maybe, just maybe, I have to consider that a lifestyle of loving my enemies includes a life of loving the sister who interprets the covering as a Mennonite cap, and loving the brother who drives a more brightly colored vehicle. [obviously I’m really reaching here for examples because I realize that somehow I’m not even sure what churches always fight about HAHA]
“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Hmmm. Is that why just getting along with your brothers and sisters in Christ seems to be the hardest of all? [the fact that they seem to have the capacity to be your greatest enemy of all]
I wonder, how I wonder, if Jesus was simply talking about our normal lives when He said turn the other cheek, give away your cloak, and love and pray for those who hurt you. Quite possibly, yes, He was hoping to prepare us for the day when it was the neighbor trying to steal our land or the gunman threatening to kill us. But also quite possibly, we won’t be ready for that day if we already struggle with the fact that Linda* seems to always get first choice in what day to bring food to the new mom. [Because, isn’t it always the little things in life that decide the later big things?]
I encourage you to dig deeper than the glib “I believe in nonresistance” answer you hope to put on your draft call one day, and figure out what Jesus is really calling you to in Matthew 5. Next time you end up on the wrong side of a deal, and before you fight for your personal rights, ask Jesus how He would have you respond.
***************************************************************
Principle 3: A “turning the other cheek” lifestyle refers to a willingness to forgo personal rights: allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of materially and physically, responding to unkindness with love, and giving possessions unreservedly.
***************************************************************
Ok, personal sharing time now since I should probably be honest and real about my own failures in this area. ๐ I faced this whole issue in a very real way twice last fall – an insurance company who did not give me the full value of my totaled car, and a boss who ended up paying me less than minimum wage for the hours I worked.
I won’t go into details because that would be a long story, but in the insurance episode I fought internally for a very long time that this isn’t fair! But as I cried out to God with the whole why did this happen to me?? I only got one answer in reply: stop trying to force them to make it right. Accept it. Leave it to Me. Do you trust Me to care for you?
The failed job experience was difficult momentarily, but for some reason my heart found peace much more quickly. I’d love to say it was because I learned my lesson from the insurance episode, but honestly, I feel that most of all God just gave me much grace.
With the insurance company episode, I learned that stressing about my rights wasn’t worth it and did zero zilch nothing to fix the situation. And with the underpaid job episode, I learned that not receiving the expected income was really not that stressful in the long run when I just accepted that what was “owed me” stood between the boss and God – why did I have to worry over something that wasn’t my problem? [Such a peaceful place to be, really. Made me wish I’d given up fighting in the insurance episode a lot sooner, as I’m sure my high blood pressure raised my risk of heart failure by at least 5%.] … and far beyond the simple lessons about submitting my personal rights and โownershipโ to Godโs control, I learned many more various things which are too numerous to recount here at this time!
[[[Regarding whether I’ve actually taken this mini nonresistance sermon to heart personally… I suppose the real question is, if I met the insurance agent on the street, would she experience love from me? Ahh, now that’s a tough one. I’m still a work in progress. ๐ Maybe by the time I make it back to PA someday, God will have wrought a great miracle in my heart towards her.]]]
>>>>>
Is this really only Part 3? (There’s still 3 more drafts in-progress). It kinda took me forever. I have prayed, pondered, erased, rewrote – for hours and days upon end – and still, I fear this post is a jumble of words that fail to convey my heart properly. But may God use it to spawn a greater search in each of us as to what it means to be a truly loving people, beyond a cloak of claiming “nonresistance”.
~S.B.
*Disclaimer: for anyone who thinks I’m referring to the literal Karens and Lindas I know – LOL, no. It’s a cliche. A joke.