Jesus peaceful

4/18/2013

20 Comments

Most of us have heard about Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:39). This adage has been mistakenly interpreted as Jesus’ support for becoming a doormat underneath the feet of aggressors. We often think the message is to let people beat us up. It verges on religiously motivated masochism.

To take Jesus’ advice as a call to compliant capitulation is a dangerous mistake. It is an interpretation that fails to see his cultural context. It would be like taking Paul’s command for women not to braid their hair as universal condemnation of woven locks (1 Timothy 2:9). Or, you might literally heave a tin can of fiery coals at your enemy’s face because Paul said loving your enemies led to heaping burning coals on their head (Romans 12:20). Such shortsighted interpretation moved me to investigate the cultural meaning behind Jesus’ most mysterious actions in my latest book Reenacting the Way (of Jesus). Here’s what I discovered about the real meaning behind Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek toward an aggressor (props to Walter Wink et al for this insight).

Getting Slapped by Roman Soldiers In Jesus’ day Roman soldiers strutted arrogantly around Israel. The Jewish land was Roman occupied territory. There was no love lost between the occupying soldiers and the Israelite population. When a soldier decided that he needed a Jew’s goods or services, resistance was futile. The Jewish subject better be quick to fetch water, strong enough to carry a load, and ready to give away his shirt or else. If the subject could not perform the request to the soldier’s liking, then a quick backhand to the face was not far behind. This was the situation Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the Mount.

“If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek toward him.” The statement seems to imply that one should invite an aggressor to leave no part of the face out of a good beating. This statement does not sit well among Bible readers who believe that a man should protect his property and family against aggression. It really does not sit well in the mind of the careful and culturally informed reader.

Jesus does not just tell someone who takes a fist to the face to expose the uninjured side. He gives clear instruction to expose the left cheek. This leads to a couple important questions. Why would Jesus indicate that the first blow will come to the right cheek? Why would he instruct someone to offer the left cheek to an attacking Roman soldier?

The answer is simple. Roman soldiers tended to be right-handed. When they struck an equal with a fist, it came from the right and made contact with the left side of the face. When they struck an inferior person, they swung with the back of their right hand making contact with the right cheek. In a Mediterranean culture that made clear distinctions between classes, Roman soldiers backhanded their subjects to make a point. Jews were second-class. No one thought twice about the rectitude of treating lesser people with less respect.

Peaceful SubversionWhen Jesus tells fellow Jews to expose the left cheek, he is calling for “peaceful subversion.” He does not want them to retaliate in anger nor to shrink in some false sense of meekness. He wants to force the Roman soldiers to treat them like equals. He wants the Jews to stand up and demand respect. He wants to make each attacker stop and think about how they are mistreating another human being. It is the same motivation behind his command to “go an extra mile” after a soldier forced you to carry water for the first mile (Matt 5:41). It is intended to activate the soldier’s conscience.

Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” is ultimately a call to peaceful resistance. It is the mantra of reformers inspired (at least in part) by Jesus like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Elsewhere in the Bible the books of Proverbs and Romans call it “heaping burning coals upon your enemy’s head.” That expression is an ancient Near Eastern mourning ritual. People put ashes on their head to express deep sorrow or regret. The apostle Paul’s call to “overcome evil with good” and thereby “heap burning coals on an enemy’s head” is a call to shame evil people into repentance. It is a peaceful plan to subvert cultural evils.

A Long-Term Plan for Change“Turning the other cheek” is not blanket acceptance of brutality. It is a strategy for motivating others to change. Specifically, it’s a method for reforming people who abuse their power.

If you meet evil with evil and blow for blow, the cycle of vengeance will never end. Palestinians displaced from their land who shoot rockets at Israelis will only escalate the Middle East crisis. The same goes for Israeli soldiers who break into Palestinian homes and leave it full of bullet casings after killing their neighbors without explanation or warrant. Violence will beget violence unless someone is strong enough to rise above.

Nelson Mandela knows how “peaceful subversion” works. It doesn’t happen quickly. It takes an inordinate amount of courage and character. For Mandela it took 27 years in a prison on Robin Island. But eventually the Apartheid’s treatment of black South Africans brought them universal shame. The world could no longer allow the Apartheid to continue its reign after witnessing so many stark examples of extreme brutality and injustice. Mandela did not fight back (though he had considered plans to do so and members of his movement unfortunately did). Mandela also did not silently submit to an existence of inhumane treatment. He stood up. He raised his voice. He took it on the chin and in so doing demonstrated the inhumanity of their aggressors. An entire country is different because he did.

“Peaceful subversion” is one among many of Jesus’ plans for changing the world. You’ll miss it if you misunderstand his cultural context. Jesus didn’t command us to get beat up. He commanded us to activate people’s consciousness of injustice.

In our day-to-day, it may mean responding with kind and selfless words when a boss has come on the attack with accusatory and thoughtless one-liners. You follow up his attack with a stop by his office where you compliment his demonstrated strengths. You show him how to empower someone thoughtfully so that he sees the contrast between his diminutive assault and your perceptive edification. You don’t fire back with a cheap shot. You step back into his space with love. He may just fire away again, but he might also become aware of his heartlessness. Don’t expect it to work immediately. It took Nelson Mandela 27 years in prison.

If you want to uncover the purpose behind more of Jesus’ mysterious actions and recommendations by studying the ancient cultural context, 

read my latest book Reenacting the Way (of Jesus). 20 Comments

Dave

4/19/2013 09:46:29 am

Paul,

Thanks for your careful and thoughtful interpretation of this text in its cultural context. To say the least, it’s very insightful and challenging. I think your examples of Gandhi, MLK and Mandela are very appropriate. They are all examples of people using peaceful subversion to resist a more powerful authority committing unjust oppression.

I do, however, question if the application to the “war on terror” is fair. Those who instigate the acts of terror are not more powerful in terms of military might. They are not authority figures over the people who have chosen to respond to their acts of terror. While their acts are unjust, they do not oppress those who have responded to them. I’m also unsure if it is fair to characterize the strategy of the entire “war on terror” as “slaughter those who slaughter.” I have personally witnessed Soldiers show an extreme measure of restraint because things like rules of engagement and escalation of force. I have also witnessed our Soldiers remove detainees from local country prisons because they were being tortured. If you’re referring to drone strikes, I think that few people realize how small a part of the overall war effort that tactic really is.

I’m not saying that this text can’t apply to the war on terror. I’m only saying that it seems out of place among your other illustrations/applications. I’m also not saying that other scriptures may have an application against the policy of “the war on terror.”

Personally, I see it more as governing authorities seeking to protect their citizens by bringing those who have or plan to do them harm to justice or to face the consequences of resisting those efforts. I think I could make a case for application of Romans 13 here, but that may be stretching things as well. I also know the context of my ministry colors my ability to be objective about “the war on terror.”

Again, I greatly appreciate and respect your interpretation. I will reflect on it in the days to come and seek to apply it to my life in my context. Thank you for all you do for His glory.

-Dave

Reply

Paul Penley (blog author)

3/30/2018 12:51:05 pm

I have considered your feedback about the difference between authorities abusing their power and terrorists compromising the safety of the state (and the people in it). I changed my present-day example to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a result. I agree with you that the dynamics in the “war on terror” are markedly different than Jesus’ contemporary problem with an oppressive occupying force.

Reply

Ronnie

7/11/2018 06:45:53 am

Thanks

Reply

Nathan Hunt

6/9/2014 01:43:04 pm

Thanks for your presentation of this idea. The first time I heard it–from a seminary prof–along with Wink’s reinterpretation of the other two peaceful retaliation passages, it was framed as a way to publicly shame our abusers thereby forcing them to stop. I rejected this interpretation because I believe shame is part of what Jesus came to free people from, not a tactic of the Kingdom. Your emphasis on asserting personal humanity and equality redefines the intention. I haven’t read Wink directly on this subject. Is this possibly the context in which he originally wrote it? Very helpful, thank you.

Reply

Mike

2/8/2017 04:24:51 pm

So glad you pointed out “shame” as also the problem. It is MY motivation that is important. Do I return fist for a fist, only demonstrating to both that bodily/separate identity is being chosen. Or do I turn the left cheek, and choose my equality because we are both One (i.e. Love)? The latter would have no intent to shame. That the offender may go through a shame cycle may be part of their path, but would be no more part of my intent than violence of any kind would be.

Reply

Amos Mathias

8/26/2014 03:15:59 am

I am so much worried about this passage considering the persecutions the Nigerian Christians more especially in the North around Borno State were Christian worship is no longer allowed in some areas and the kidnapping of over 200 school girls with 90% of them Christians and were force to denounce their faith. I understand that the passage only applies only with issues concerning person to person or a person to a group. What of the likes of the Nigerian situation where Boko Haram is myrtiering Christian do both Christian and the Government now keep quiet while they perpetrate ther evil? Please in this case what will you say about this?

Reply

Amos Mathias

8/26/2014 03:27:37 am

I am so much worried about this passage considering the persecutions the Nigerian Christians are passing through more especially in the North around Borno State where Christians worship is no longer allowed in some areas and the kidnapping of over 200 school girls with 90% of them Christians and were force to denounce their faiths. Its seems that the passage applies to issues concerning person to person or a person to a group. What of the likes of the Nigerian situation where Boko Haram is myrtiering Christians do both Christians and the Government turn their right cheeks for this men to perpetrate their evil? In this scenario what have you to say?

Reply

Amos Mathias

8/26/2014 03:28:03 am

I am so much worried about this passage considering the persecutions the Nigerian Christians are passing through more especially in the North around Borno State where Christians worship is no longer allowed in some areas and the kidnapping of over 200 school girls with 90% of them Christians and were force to denounce their faiths. Its seems that the passage applies to issues concerning person to person or a person to a group. What of the likes of the Nigerian situation where Boko Haram is myrtiering Christians do both Christians and the Government turn their right cheeks for this men to perpetrate their evil? In this scenario what have you to say?

Reply

Amos Mathias

8/26/2014 03:28:15 am

I am so much worried about this passage considering the persecutions the Nigerian Christians are passing through more especially in the North around Borno State where Christians worship is no longer allowed in some areas and the kidnapping of over 200 school girls with 90% of them Christians and were force to denounce their faiths. Its seems that the passage applies to issues concerning person to person or a person to a group. What of the likes of the Nigerian situation where Boko Haram is myrtiering Christians do both Christians and the Government turn their right cheeks for this men to perpetrate their evil? In this scenario what have you to say?

Reply

Amos Mathias Wadings

8/26/2014 03:29:03 am

I am so much worried about this passage considering the persecutions the Nigerian Christians are passing through more especially in the North around Borno State where Christians worship is no longer allowed in some areas and the kidnapping of over 200 school girls with 90% of them Christians and were force to denounce their faiths. Its seems that the passage applies to issues concerning person to person or a person to a group. What of the likes of the Nigerian situation where Boko Haram is myrtiering Christians do both Christians and the Government turn their right cheeks for this men to perpetrate their evil? In this scenario what have you to say?

Reply

Paul

5/14/2015 11:09:09 am

What a remarkably tough situation to face in Nigeria. I believe the historical context of Jesus’ comments help us not to apply the principle in remarkably dissimilar situations. In fact, proper application of scripture should identify multiple parallels between an ancient and modern situation before concluding we should do the exact same thing. Since Boko Haram functions as a terrorist organization and Rome functioned as an empire ruled by law and a senate (though abusive to its enemies), it presents different contexts. I don’t have an adequate understanding of the dynamics in Nigeria, but those Christians there have to determine what will accomplish Jesus’ same purpose possibly in very different ways than letting themselves be kidnapped. The questions is: what action will boldly move the militants to repent or be shamed even if you suffer for it? Jesus’ way is not the easy way.

Reply Yves link

9/27/2014 02:32:30 am

Beautifully written. I plan to share your explanation on my website (in a forum discussion). My best….Yves

Reply

david

4/9/2017 09:28:10 am

Your example of Nelson Mandela is disturbing and perhaps even self defeating. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist who burnt people alive with vehicle tires and gasoline. His followers continued this practice while he was incarcerated.
Apart from the Mandela gaffe, I loved your explanation, especially the significance of the left cheek/right cheek. Thank you.

Reply

erna bruwer

12/8/2017 09:38:25 am

David- you are totally right about Nelson Mandela! The ANC has run this country down the drain and the white farmers and their families are being killed in the most inhuman ways possible. Women as old as 90 years old getting raped, burned with irons. They poured boiling water into a 12 year old boy’s throat! The list is just too long and horrible to mention here……God can help us!

Reply

Paul Penley

3/30/2018 12:56:11 pm

Your cautionary words about how Mandela’s political party and compatriots show us how rarely someone, and never an entire group, stays non-violent when responding to present or past injustice. Gandhi himself has a mixed record where he eliminated a statement about the equality of all people in the Indian constitution because he believed black people and lower castes were inferior.

Pamela Tucker

8/6/2018 12:51:32 pm

Were you as vocal during the injustices of apartheid, the rapes, murders, indignities to man, woman, or child. Probably not — wrong color, right?

Reply

Jon

12/3/2017 07:33:31 am

Great insight! Thank you! The part about the heaping of coals is also a passage that is often misterpreted like turn the other cheek. It actually was not a reference to shame or convict someone for their actions but a reference to a literary work of the time and a cultural practice. People in a village community would go to designated places to pick up hot coals in containers on their heads in order to carry them back to their fires for cooking. So the reference is about overcoming evil with good by recognizing retaliating only continues to spread evil. When we love we heap coals of love, mercy, and goodness that can potentially lesson the harshness they carry to others. Shame can often perpetrate more anger and wrong doing. Heaping coals goes well with activating their conscience concerning their behavior, but the motivation is not shaming them or scorning them to repentance for that is not love it’s just a different kind of passive aggressive manipulative retaliation. Heaping coals has to do with not letting another person’s actions determine your love but instead being the aroma of Christ. It is about moving in a different spirit, and in so doing making a difference in this world.

Reply

Stacy

3/25/2018 02:08:31 am

Thanks for the article.
I’ve been talking to a guy on YouTube that thinks you’re supposed to turn the other cheek at all times.
I asked him what if a person breaks into your home and is going to rape your wife in front of him. I asked him, would he look at his wife while she begged him to help her and say, ‘Sorry, honey, but I have to turn the other cheek’ or would he defend her at all cost? He actually said he would turn the other cheek. His reason? Because Jesus took a beating by the Romans and did not fight back. He was then Crucified.
I told him that if Jesus said any thing or fought back, He would win. He wouldn’t have died for our sins and we’d all be doomed for hell.
I believe in protecting my family from evil by any means necessary.
I couldn’t just sit there and watch them get tortured when I know I could stop it.
What do you think?

Reply Mike link

3/25/2018 12:58:59 pm

There’s a wonderful story in a great book The Miracle of Real Forgiveness (Tom Carpernter). A nurse in Manhattan riding a night subway is faced with her biggest fear – being alone with a man in the car. She decides to practice forgiveness she’s been learning at a conference on A Course in Miracles. She reminds herself that it is her “personal” history that has given this meaning to this situatioin. She chooses to let that be changed (including asking internally – “God” – how to see and respond to this in a new way). She feels inspired to ask the man to escort her home.. At her door she feels inspired to confess her attack fears he had triggered. After a pause, he confesses he had planned to, and walks away in peace.

“Turning the other cheeck” was creative non violence for that situatiion in those times. It comes after accepting/understaning it is our own defensive/fear posture that invites being shared/acted out with others (and attack is just further defensivieness, justified as “preemptive”). When we call a a “future” possibility “realistic”, we have already shut down our creative, inspired possiblities in any actual moment. This is faith (but doesn’t preclude “practice” for a time to reverse our upside down mindset). A faith that persevers, because that nurse could have reverted to her fear being justified, She continued to choose to see how her letting go of fear was part of the breaking of the cycle of fear. This loving message was extended to her at the conference, it continued to extend to the man, to the book author, to me, and now to you.

Reply

Rob

5/5/2018 06:18:54 am

Stacy-
Not to put words in another’s mouth, but I believe the author answers your question at the beginning of the article:

“This adage has been mistakenly interpreted as Jesus’ support for becoming a doormat underneath the feet of aggressors.”

While there is an interpretation to avoid violence, I believe this verse in cultural context is more about human equality. Admittedly, I have never been one to take the gentle approach, but I would rather protect my family and ask for forgiveness, than sit by and do nothing, which would be somewhat cowardly in my view.

Reply