Use Your Head, Not Your Fists

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.

Matthew 5:38-42

We live in an era where revenge and retaliation enjoy wide ranging approval and justification. When “FAFO” finds its way into our government's official discourse, it is fair to say we live in an era where the ancient Biblical doctrine of “an eye for an eye” is very popular.

We therefore need to reflect regularly upon Jesus’ counsel during the Sermon on the Mount to “turn the other cheek.” For the sake of righteousness, we do well to be absolutely clear in our understanding of Jesus’ teaching, and how we reconcile His apparently pacifist message with ancient Jewish law, a law Jesus proclaimed would not be changed, ever.

If “an eye for an eye” is Biblical—and it is—why would Jesus preach to His followers not to retaliate?

The easy rationalization is that, from Jesus, we are exempted from the Law by the miracle of Grace. Alas, that is but a rationalization, and one which collapses quickly upon scrutiny. Jesus made it quite clear in Matthew 5:17-18 that He in no way sought to change the smallest portion of the Law. In that same passage, He also clearly states that he who relaxes the smallest portion of the Law will be accounted the least in the Kingdom of God.

God's Law remains God's Law. God gives mankind one Law. There is not one Law for Christians and another for everyone else.

To perfect our understanding of the admonition to turn the other cheek, we must reconcile that teaching to the particulars of the Law. As God does not quarrel with Himself, both Jesus’ admonition and the Law must be true. We are not given the luxury of picking and choosing which portions of God's Law we will follow.

Thus, the same weight we give Jesus’ admonition we must give to that portion of God's Law articulated in Exodus 21:22-24.

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Even superficially, God's Law is clear: the harm we do shall be the harm we receive.

We should note also the stated predicate for the penalty. The consequence arises from when two men are at odds with each other, and their conflict results in the injury of an innocent bystander. The Biblical penalty of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” arises in the context of reckless injury done to the innocent. If we shed innocent blood and take innocent life, God's Law defines justice as our life being forfeit.

This standard is reiterated in Leviticus 24:19-21:

When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured. He who kills a beast shall make it good; and he who kills a man shall be put to death.

As in Exodus, the offender here is one who has attacked and injured another. Implicit is the presumption that the harm is in one direction only; one man is attacking another, rather than two men fighting. In such circumstance, just as with the commandment from Exodus, the penalty still arises out of harming the innocent, and the penalty is still that the harm we do is the harm we receive.

What about a scenario where two men have come to blows, and one is injured? How is that harming the innocent?

While it is easy to contemplate such a scenario, we must remember that God's Law already makes such conflict sinful. We know this, because God's Law also cautions us against conflict, anger, and hatred. In Leviticus 19:17-18, that caution is the predicate for the commandment to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, which Jesus teaches us is the corollary to the Great Commandment.

You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Rather than fighting one another, we are called to resolve our differences with reason. We are warned that failure to do so invites further sin upon us. If we insist on violence, we are doing a wrong thing, and so we are inviting penalty upon us. If I commit a sin of violence by fighting with another, and he fights with me, we both have invited penalty upon us.

If we do grievous injury in the course of our sinful conduct, why would justice not demand we receive the injuries we inflict?

We are commanded by God to avoid conflict. We are called by God to embrace peace and harmony. From the time God gave Moses the Law, to teach the nation of Israel, this has been the commandment and the calling.

So certain is the calling of peace that God restated it yet again, in Deuteronomy 32:35, as part of the song God gave Moses in the last days of the Lawgiver’s life.

Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.

Not only are we called to refrain from vengeance, God explicitly claims the right of vengeance for Himself. Vengeance and retaliation are reserved for God, not for man.

Each of these passages is part of God's Word. Of that there can be no doubt.

Each of these passages is part of God's Law. Of that there can be no doubt.

Each of these passages is one we are called to follow and keep. We do not get to pick and choose which parts of God's Law we keep and which parts we break.

Why, then, does Jesus teach us not to resist one who is evil? God’s Law on violence and vengeance being what it is, what understanding does Jesus want us to take from this?

Every search for understanding begins with understanding the terms being used. Our search for understanding Jesus teaching here must do likewise.

How should we define who is evil? It cannot be simply one who does wickedness, for we are all guilty of wickedness. We must reach just a little farther than that, and consider Jesus’ teaching a little closer than that.

Jesus teaches us not to resist, which also tells us that the one who is evil is doing wickedness against us directly. The attacker, the predator, the oppressor are the ones who are doing evil against us. The attacker, the predator, the oppressor are the ones we are at least tempted to “resist”—and in particular resist with violence, as the fundamental premise behind both the dictum “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and Jesus’ teaching is the use of violence against another.

If we refrain from hating our brother in our heart, if we do not seek vengeance against our brother, but leave all vengeance to God, on what basis could we propose to resist with violence anyone who does evil against us?

Is Jesus not simply reminding us of the whole of the Law, and simply summarizing the Law? I submit that is precisely what He is doing.

Yet He is also doing more than just summarizing the Law. When we look at the whole passage, we can see that Jesus is actually putting the Law into practice.

Recall that the Law says we are to “reason” when we have conflicts with others. We are meant to resolve conflicts by using our heads and not our fists.

With His admonition of turning the other cheek, Jesus is demonstrating how that works.

In the ancient Mediterranean world, and in much of the world today, being slapped on the cheek was not merely an act of violence, it was an act of domination. It was an effort by one person to establish higher station, higher authority, and greater power than another. In keeping with that modality of dominance assertion, such a slap would be delivered using the back of the right hand—the right hand because that was the “clean” hand, and the back of the hand because that was (and often still is) how one deals with subordinates.

If, after being slapped thus on the right cheek, one turns to present the left cheek, the aggressor has to make a decision: deliver a backhanded slap with the left hand (not socially acceptable), deliver a slap on the left cheek with the open palm (which implies equal status), or walk away. In all three scenarios, the aggressor’s effort to establish dominance is thwarted. By simply turning to present the left cheek, one takes complete control of the encounter. What begins as an attempt at dominance ends as a demonstration of equality.

A similar pattern plays out for going the extra mile. A man who would force a person to carry a burden for any distance is once again being not just aggressive but dominating. Forcing a man to carry a burden is effectively to enslave that man, even if only for a brief interlude.

Yet by carrying the burden farther than is demanded, what starts off as an act of domination by one person over another is transformed into an act of generosity by the one who otherwise would be dominated. One who chooses to give to another by definition cannot be dominated by that person. Again, what begins as an attempt at dominance ends as a demonstration of equality.

Additionally, in ancient Judea, if the one forcing another to carry his burden were a Roman soldier, it may be fairly concluded that there were limits on how far that soldier might push an individual to carry his burden. The Roman legions were famous for their rigorous discipline, and it is unlikely a soldier would want to be seen disobeying an order. Going further than the mile demanded might put that soldier in a dangerous position in the eyes of his superiors. That danger might even make him rethink the notion of forcing someone to carry his burden for him. In such circumstance, the willingness to go that additional mile makes a person dangerous, and perhaps best left alone.

There are, of course, those who even back then would have thought nothing of backhanding someone with their left hand, and today there are surely more of those. Similarly, there were surely Roman soldiers stationed in Judea who would think nothing of making locals carry their packs for two, three, or more miles, regardless of what the rules and the orders might be. The tactics Jesus is proposing are hardly guaranteed in their outcome.

Nevertheless, by proposing these alternatives to violence—to “resistance” in the physical realm—Jesus is doing what He does throughout the Gospels: reframing the situation. Instead of contending on His opponent’s terms, time and again He changes the conditions, so that His opponents must contend on His.

He does this when He judges the woman caught in adultery by ruling that the person among her accusers who has never sinned stones her first. Obviously, claiming to be sinless would be seen as blasphemy among the Jewish people, and so nobody could carry out the sentence. Jesus in actuality ruled against the woman and upheld the Law—and at the same time made it impossible for ordinary men to carry out the sentence. Jesus turned the totality of God’s Law into a powerful demonstration of God’s Grace.

When Jesus counsels us not to resist one who is evil, He is challenging us to do likewise, to reframe every situation and every conflict. He is challenging us to use our minds in every conflict, so that we contend strictly on our terms, and never anyone else’s.

Whenever one seeks to oppress and dominate you, do not lean into violence. Lean into whatever gifts you have from God. Be strategic in your thinking, and tactical in your actions.

Do that right thing which frustrates the oppressor’s designs—but always do the right thing. Do not be guided by anger and hatred, and do not reflexively react with violence. Do not put yourself at risk for doing something wrong.

My prayer is always that I will be guided by reason and not by emotion, that I will rise above anger and hatred to respond to every conflict with actions which are both righteous and effective. My prayer is always that I will see how to alter the premise of every conflict, that I may find that one right response which works to my greatest advantage. My prayer is always that I will find ways to frustrate the evil designs of others, not by acting against God’s Law but in keeping with it.

My prayer is always that you also will be guided by reason and not by emotion, that you will rise above anger and hatred to respond to every conflict with actions which are both righteous and effective. My prayer is always that you also will see how to alter the premise of every conflict, that you may find that one right response which works to your greatest advantage. My prayer is always that you also will find ways to frustrate the evil designs of others, not by acting against God’s Law but in keeping with it.

Whenever one seeks to oppress and dominate you, do not lean into violence. Lean into whatever gifts you have from God. Be strategic in your thinking, and tactical in your actions.

Do that right thing which frustrates the oppressor’s designs—but always do the right thing. Do not be guided by anger and hatred, and do not reflexively react with violence. Do not put yourself at risk for doing something wrong.

That is how one turns the other cheek in every conflict.