This is probably one of the more divisive sayings of Jesus. Strict pacifists in particular use verse 39 to suggest that Jesus himself is a strict pacifist who hates war, just or otherwise. Therefore we should be pacifists too. After all, we are to “turn the other cheek” when slapped, punched, kicked, mutilated or what have you. In addition, we are not to “resist the one who is evil.” That means we do not fight wars, join the police force, or even defend our families from an intruder, regardless of how “evil” the opponent might be. In my opinion, many avoidable evils have taken place all because a pacifist believer—well intended, no doubt—played the “turn-the-other-cheek” card.
The pacifist / non-pacifist dialogue will inevitably continue until we all nuke ourselves into oblivion (or non-violently protest our way to a blissful utopia). What I will say here is not likely to put an end to the discussion. In fact, as I read through Matthew 5:38-42, I find it hard to see how this passage has any bearing on the pro-war / pacifist debate. Instead, this has everything to do with personal individual rights, and our willingness to relinquish those rights in an effort to be peacemakers.
In order to have a clearer understanding of Jesus’ words, we need to keep in mind the context that lays beneath Jesus’ words, namely the Old Testament Law. The context of Jesus’ words about retaliation comes from another misinterpretation of an Old Testament text: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21.24). This law was given to the people and was to be applied by the courts, and it did two things.
First, it validated punishments for crimes, punishments to be meted out by an appropriate judicial system. There are certain behaviors that individuals cannot get away with. Society does not simply frown upon theft, rape, murder and the like, society sees those things as absolutely unacceptable, warranting just punishment. I think we could all agree that certain behaviors should be punished, though we might differ with respect to the actual punishments themselves.
Exodus 21 notices that some behaviors are unacceptable and should be punished. At the same time, the law secondly puts a limit on how far the judicial system could go in meting out punishment. In a way, this was the ancient Jewish version of not inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment.” If an individual is guilty of violence toward another individual, and that violence leaves the victim without an eye, a judge may determine that the perpetrator is to lose his eye, but nothing more. In so doing, justice has been served in the fairest way possible and escalation of violence is avoided.
By the time Jesus arrived, Jews had been sidestepping the judicial nature of the law, instead applying it to interpersonal relationships. In a way, they were giving themselves the right to take matters into their own hands. Crimes were not tried by a jury of one’s peers, and no appeals were made to unbiased judges who could gather facts and make the right call. Instead of trusting judges to make a fair case, individuals were asking, “How far can I go with my vendetta?”
Against this, Jesus says, “Do not resist an evil person.” Then he gives four examples of how this may be worked out. Yet again, I don’t believe this is justifying or refuting absolute pacifism. Instead, this passage is about personal rights.
First, if you are slapped (perhaps the highest insult one person could give another), by the legal standard of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” you probably reserve the right to slap back. You have the right to defend your honor, or at the very least, you have the right to prevent it from happening a second time. However, there is a marked difference between “right” and “obligation.” You certainly have the right to do something about your recently-slapped face, but you are not obliged to act. Quite to the contrary, you should be willing to offer your other cheek as well.
The same is true about your “cloak.” The second example pictures two men on their way to a court settlement. If you get sued, it may well cost you the shirt off your back. Fair enough, but Jesus wants his hearers to be willing to part with their “cloak” as well. According to Exodus 22:26-27, the “cloak” was something that legally could not be taken from an individual, and yet here Jesus is, saying, “Be willing to part even with that.” You have a right to keep your cloak; you also have permission to give it away.
Speaking of rights, third, a Roman soldier reserved the right to force a civilian to help him for a prescribed distance. Obviously, if a soldier ordered you to do that, you were obligated to obey, but if he wanted you to go even one inch further, you had the right to refuse. Yes, you have the right to refuse going one inch further, but you have permission to continue. You do not have to cling to your rights.
Finally, the Old Testament prescribes a system of giving and lending to the one in need. Sure, your hard-earned money is yours and you have the right to do with it what you will. You also have permission to give it away.
You do have inalienable rights. However, there are times when it may be better to forego your rights. Paul understood this. In 1 Corinthians 9, he reminds his readers of all the “rights” he is entitled to, not the least of which is reaping a “material harvest” from them (v. 11) and the “right of support” (v. 12). However, he follows that up by saying, “But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.” Earlier than that, he sums up a discourse about food sacrificed to idols by saying, “Be careful that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Cor. 8.9). In Paul’s mind, the progression of the gospel and making peace with neighbors was far superior to maintaining personal rights, however important those might be.
Christ called his disciples “peacemakers.” Then he told them their “righteousness” needs to surpass that of the Pharisees. Pharisaical righteousness understands one’s rights and entitlements and refuses to have those stepped on. Yet in an effort to make peace, we also have permission to forego our rights if it means we can make peace with another individual. Why hold on to your inalienable rights if doing so leads to further strained relationships?
In a nation as free as ours, our rights and entitlements are a dearly beloved possession, almost to a divine degree. We often appeal to our rights in order to get our way, but in the meantime, we end up walking on our neighbors in the name of “It’s my right!”
Our neighbor across the street used to have a boat that he kept in his driveway. His next-door neighbor threw a fit because she thought the side of his boat crossed the property line. It didn’t. It was fully on his property, and he had the right to keep it where it was. In fact, if he really wanted, he could have summoned a surveyor who would be able to prove it. In fact, he actually could have moved it even closer to her house, just to spite her. He didn’t. He knew he was right, but he moved his boat anyway. In refusing to appeal to his inalienable right to keep his boat where it was, he moved the boat in order to keep peace with his neighbor.
This passage is not about just war versus pacifism. This is about foregoing our inalienable rights in order to keep the peace between our neighbors. It does not turn us into a doormat for others to walk on. Instead, it gives us an opportunity to advance the gospel toward those who don’t deserve it. Yes, we have our rights. Are you willing to give up your rights if it means making peace with an enemy, if it means the gospel goes forward?
Comments
Post a Comment