I'm skeptical of Donald Sensing's description of Jesus' instruction to "turn the other cheek" as an admonishment to resist oppression. Here's the passage in context:
Matthew 5:38-42It seems very clear to me that Jesus is not advocating resistance or even civil disobedience. This passage comes right after the Beatitudes, where Jesus says "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Rev. Sensing writes:
In the culture of the day, backhanding someone was a gesture of contempt. It was how you treated someone who was beneath you in class and status. To give someone the back of your hand was to say by gesture, "Remember your place! I am superior to you!" It was how a father rebuked his son, a brother his sister, a husband his wife and a master his slave or servant.It's not that I disagree with Donald's conclusions, I just don't think this passage is implying what he says it does. Taken in context with Jesus' other teachings, I don't see any way to infer that he was advocating any resistance to Roman power. Jesus' main concern was spiritual warfare, and he never seemed to worry about physical oppression on this fallen earth.That being so, Jesus’ advice to turn the other, or left, cheek to be struck is loaded with symbolic meaning. It is certainly not advice to be submissive to evil. It has at least two loaded meanings:
- I deny that I am inferior to you and I demand you acknowledge me as your equal by striking me a forehand blow, and
- as your equal, I have the right to strike you back.
Turning the other cheek actually could well have been Jesus’ admonishment to the people under oppression by the Romans and class structures to stop being passive and start resisting, but never to be the aggressor and to provide an opportunity for the oppressor to ponder the evil of his ways.
The use of the word "also" seems significant to me as well, since it implies "in addition to" rather than "instead of".
Update:
Donald posts more, and comments on my post here as well.
My main disagreement with him isn't on whether the social order should change (it should) but rather on the method. Let's look at Ephesians 6 for more insight.
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.First, consider the slaves Paul writes about. Does this passage imply that slavery is good? Of course not. But Paul also doesn't tell the slaves to flee -- rather he instructs them to serve their masters in a Godly way, so as to be examples of goodness. Liekwise, masters were reminded that they too had a Master in heaven who would hold them accountable. Paul's focus wasn't on changing the social order, but rather on changing the hearts of those involved.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
19 Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.
Secondly, our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Our battle isn't against this world order -- the sinful world we live in is only a symptom of the greater spiritual illness that infects our species. Fighting to change the system isn't bad, but treating the symptoms directly is ultimately useless if the disease isn't cured. Only by fighting in this spiritual battle can hearts be turned to Christ, and the material world will follow. All the equipment Paul lists is spiritual in nature, and this is the front where the real battle for souls is fought.
Thirdly, Paul himself was a prisoner of the oppressive Roman Empire, and he never railed against it. On the contrary, he took every opportunity to work within the system and to subvert the hearts of those he came into contact with. In the book of Acts, he says that while he was held prisoner in Rome many of the emperor's personal guards listened to him and became Christians. Eventually, Paul was put to death for his beliefs, and he never resisted the fate God had in store for him (in fact, he counted it a joy). If he had fought, he might have brought about some change to the government system, but at what cost to the cause of Christ?
Finally, we know the end of our world and everything in it: destruction. The day will come when every man and woman will stand before God to be judged, and on that day our civilization will come to an end. There's no purpose in trying to save it, because it will eventually pass away. The only things of any value are people, because people last forever.
Injustice is bad, oppression is bad, and the Bible constantly warns those in authority to use their power for good, but if we Christians allow ourselves to be distracted from our spiritual war by the battles of this world, we're falling into a trap.
Update 2:
Some further thoughts:
1 Corinthians 7:20-24Paul says it here pretty clearly: if you can relieve oppression, it's good to do so -- but don't be overly bothered by it. He recasts the physical situation in spiritual terms, and points out that no matter what our earthly circumstances are, they're of far less consequence than our spiritual standing before God.
Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
I came to the same conclusion based upon the context of the passage. Along the same line, a friend gave an interesting interpretation he had heard regarding the 'walking the second mile' part. Because the Roman soldier could force any non-citizen to carry his belongs for one mile, carrying them for a second mile would make the solider in violation of the law. I don't really think this fits the context either.
Yes, I think it's interesting to notice that Paul, nor any of the other epistle-writers, focus on the politics of the day. They don't give strategies for changing society, instead they just preach the Gospel. Their example humbles me when I think about how I use my words, time and effort.
Thank you for the link!
So was Jesus saying to let - nay, invite - the backhander to beat you up? If so, why on earth is that an ethic that I should follow at all? It sounds a lot like, "When rape is inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it."
I do not see what is so spiritual about surrender, and I simply cannot read the NT and conclude that surrendering to the oppressive powers of the world is what Jesus advocated. Neither did the apostles in their writings.
Jesus' deeds and words almost without exception dripped with political meaning, and ALL his teachings about the Kingdom of God were and are subversive to the established order.
The first attempt on Jesus' life was made because he asserted that God's promises were intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
The first time the religious hierarchy threatened his life was by accusing him of being a "glutton and a drunkard" because, they said, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." Deut. 21:18 specified death for the offense.
The Jewish establishment probably realized that when Jesus ate with the outcasts, it upset the order of society. It was a revolutionary act. What if no one paid attention to the social class of those with whom they ate? How could anyone have been set apart for holiness?
There is more to Jesus’ table fellowship than the fact that he was a real good guy and loved everybody. Maybe, some of the meals that Jesus ate had implications so profound that they addressed far more than religion. Maybe Jesus was signaling that he wanted to transform the whole social order.
What would happen in America if every Christian adult left his ordinary table fellowship only one day per week, and went to where the outcasts are, and ate a single meal with pimps and pushers and dealers and thieves and abusers?
It might transform the whole social order.
Michael the thrust of the whole Bible is that the entire social order of human societies must be destroyed - not with violence, but by transformation and supplantation.
All of Jesus Kingdom teachings attack, not affirm, both the social order of his day and of our day, too.
Here's what I said on Rev. Sensing's site:
From [a previous poster] Chris: It seems somewhat dubious that a subservsive challenge to a fight would be preceded with, "You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance."
Not to mention that after the turn the other cheek line, it continues, "and if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
I think it all boils down to: If you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em.
Are they wicked? Don't stoop to their level by angrily lashing back.
Do they hit you? Show you're actually in control of your soul by daring them to hit the other cheek.
Do they steal your tunic? Show them they can't steal your soul by offering your cloak.
Do they make you walk a mile? Show them they can't make you forget the face of your father and walk another mile with them.
Do they ask you for something? Show them you understand what priceless gifts you have been given, and give them what they ask.
You're setting an example by presenting yourself, not as inferior but as an equal - one who understands your Master's teachings and who puts them into practice: mercy (no more eye for an eye), generosity, character, honor.
Like I said, if you can't beat 'em: confuse 'em!
Donald: Yes, like I said, I don't disagree with your conclusions on the face (no pun intended), and I think our opinions on politics and social order are pretty much the same. I agree that Jesus' message was very subversive to the established religious structure of his time, but it seems clear that he wasn't interested in subverting Roman rule. He told Pilate exactly what he was about, claimed to be the King of the Jews even, and Pilate didn't have any problem with it at all.
And of course, I agree that social structure should change, but it will only change in concert with real heart change. Trying to change sinful culture directly is a losing battle. Our war is not with flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces.
Michael
Good analysis. I agree - I have heard many opinions on the turn the other cheek passage, and many of them are rationalizations against the plain (well, to me at least) admonition against personal retaliation. Especially as seen within the context.
Is it a hard teaching? Absolutely! But I find myself in rebellion against those who would change it to say we are to strike back. The jewish people wanted Jesus to strike back. Much like the current Wild At Heart movement, they wanted a Maximus or a William Wallace. They didn't get one - Jesus did not come to overthrow the reigning political structure by force, other than by the force of His Holy Spirit which turned the world upside down.
But doesn't a certain amount of physical interaction go into heart change?
Maybe it just boils down to this: we set the example for others through what we do, not what we say.
Rhesa: Yes, quite right. I'm not sure how far apart Donald and I are in practice, I'm just really concerned that Christians not get distracted from our spiritual war by these minor material battles.
I don't understand how spiritual warfare can be waged anywhere but the physical world. What goes on in the heavenly places is God's problem; what goes on here is ours.
Are we to be so heavenly minded that we are of no earthly good?
What do you do with the hundreds of years of prophetic tradition excoriating injustices in government, commerce, militarism, accumulation of wealth, divorce, ("'I hate divorce,' says the LORD God of Israel ..." Mal 2:16a), violence ("'... and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,' says the LORD Almighty" Mal 2:16b)?
We must never substitute mere symbol for substance, nor replace inward transformation of human hearts by the power of the Gospel with "social action" and political agendas. (As you probably know, I have many times railed against the religious left for exactly that.)
But to be concerned about nothing but the salvation of souls while turning a blind eye to the physical world they inhabit here and now is, according to Christ, cause for wrathful condemnation. See Mt. 25, for example.
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (James 2:14-18)
Donald: Sure, but James 2 isn't referring to any conflict. I don't have any problem with working within the system to further the ends of our faith (such as giving hungry people food, for instance, or voting for people who seem likely to govern wisely).
What God hates for people to do is on their shoulders, not ours, generally speaking.
Are we to be so earthly minded that we're no heavenly good? I fully believe that the salvation of souls is to be our number one priority. Think about missionaries in China and the Mid East. Should they be working to bring about democracy? Maybe to some extent... democracy is good for the spread of Christianity, after all. But if such work would bring them to the attention of the authorities and disrupt their ministry, then they have no business doing it.
God hates oppression, but that's not a problem that's going to be solved as long as this earth exists. Christianity eventually did end the oppression of the Roman Empire, but only slowly, by changing hearts (yeah, there's hundreds of years of history I'm glossing over there).
Even in the end of Matthew 25 Jesus didn't imply in any way that those in jail were to be broken free -- they were to be visted. Nothing in that chapter has any relation to resisting earthly oppression.
Update 2, added above, relating to 1 Corinthians 7:20-24.
I can't help but think that a large part of the lesson here is that you shouldn't just "talk the talk," you need to "walk the walk." There is no greater testament to your faith than your actions. Anyone can say they believe -- the real test is how you behave through adversity.
One of the things that I think Rev. Sensing was saying in his original post (I haven't read the addition yet) were that there were layers of meaning in the passage. On the surface it appears to be quite pacific and, in fact, will work that way as well, but underneath is the hidden meaning for those that can hear it. I think many of the things that Jesus said were like this.
S3: I'm not a pacifist, and I agree that there can be layers of meanings. Nevertheless, the plain meaning of this particular passage seems pretty clear to me.
Sensing: So was Jesus saying to let - nay, invite - the backhander to beat you up?
Jesus was giving counsel to his disciples in how to represent him. He wasn't instructing anybody on foreign policy. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. He told them to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's when his enemies were trying to catch him advocating insurrection against Rome.
I think that it's pointless to try to draw more out of his sayings than they contain. The "turn the other cheek" was in the same line as telling his followers that they would be persecuted for believing in him, but that they would be blessed for enduring it. It was teaching them how to behave in their personal lives, not how to conduct foreign policy.
Remember, when he returns in glory, he will cleanse the earth by fire. That doesn't sound like he is planning to turn the other cheek then. It sounds more like it'll be nuke time.
In sum, there are times to defend yourself and times not to. The only way to know is through the spirit.
To me, turning the other cheek means that we shouldn't return violence for violence unless there is no other way to resist evil. "Turning the other cheek" also applies to individuals, I think, more than it does to a government. If our country is militarily attacked, I wouldn't advocate a passive response. However, from individual to individual, I don't think there must be a uniform response. Defending one's honor is not necessarily the same as resisting evil. In fact, defending honor alone may easily turn us back to an "eye for an eye." In my part of the country, "defending one's honor" is a big part of the overall philosophy of life. Unfortunately, Oklahoma also has a large amount of "revenge" or "getting even" violence.
I think AST makes a good point in that this teaching really isn't about social reform, so much as it's about how our relations with others can be used to their spiritual advantage.
It's all about changing the human heart.
There's no hidden meaning, no secret knowledge.What you see is what you get. Jesus spoke in parables so it would be 1+1=2 for all of us dummies.
Simon Zealots wanted Him to lead them against Rome. He said nope, that's not the deal. Judas wanted Him to run soup kitchens or something. No, that wasn't the deal either.
But if it were some alternate universe, this theory would work. Jesus would be Martin Sheen and the Apostles would go around being snotty "I went the extra mile with a soldier and that technically put him in violation of the law! Tee!"
I don't think people would have found that too inspiring, however. The regular "wimpy" Jesus has been a BIG HIT, though. :)
I take it to mean "that your treating me as an inferior cannot demean me" or "by not resisting your blows I prove my superiority and indifference to your power."
Hit me with your best shot.