INTRODUCTION
I trained to become a Baptist minister at Bristol Baptist College. While I was there, a Canadian couple called Tom and Rebecca Yoder Neufeld gave a talk. The Yoder Neufelds are Mennonites.
Mennonites trace their origins to the Anabaptists, and the Yoder Neufelds were at Bristol Baptist College to mark the opening of an Anabaptist Centre at the college.
Anabaptists and Mennonites believe in non-resistance or pacifism. They often prefer the word ‘nonresistance’, based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:39, ‘Do not resist.’
I don’t remember much of the Yoder Neufelds’ talk but I know they argued the case for pacifism.
Shortly after coming to Bristol Baptist College, Tom Yoder Neufeld took part in a debate in London with someone called Nigel Biggar. Both Yoder Neufeld and Biggar are Christians. Both are professors. Both had recently published books. In his book, Yoder Neufeld argued the case for pacifism. In his, Biggar argued the case for just war.
The two men’s contrasting views reflect the situation in the church. Some Christians, like Yoder Neufeld, say there’s no place for violence. Others, like Biggar, say the use of force is sometimes justified. Which view is right?
Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church hosted the debate. They advertised it with this poster [picture]. It asks the question, ‘Who would Jesus shoot?’ When we look at the poster we think, Jesus wouldn’t shoot anyone! So, surely, neither should we!
I didn’t attend the debate, but I heard it was good.
Here at Rosebery we’ve been working our way through the Sermon on the Mount. I’m now going to skip over a section in which Jesus teaches about anger, lust, divorce and oaths. Those are all important subjects but I want to give an overview of the Sermon on the Mount rather than look at all of it in detail.
Today, we’re looking at Matthew 5:38-42. It’s a short passage, but a really important one! I want to focus on one particular thing Jesus says: ‘Do not resist the one who is evil’ [5:39]. Is Jesus telling us to be pacifist?!
This is a key verse for many of the Christian groups which advocate pacificism. Mennonites Amish, Quakers, Christadelphians and Seventh-Day Adventists all refer to Matthew 5:39 in their defence of pacifism. Jesus clearly says ‘Do not resist the one who is evil.’ Does that mean that we should never resist a person who is evil? Does it mean we should be pacifist? Or does Jesus’ instruction apply to particular situations?
Before going on to that, let’s consider if it’s important anyway. It certainly is! Let me give you some examples.
In 1994, the plane carrying the Hutu president of Rwanda was shot down. That sparked the Rwanda genocide. In a period of about 100 days, about 600,000 people were killed, mostly Tutsi. The rest of the world did very little.
Twenty years after the genocide, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon visited Rwanda to remember the event. In his speech he said, ‘We could have done much more. We should have done much more ... In Rwanda, troops were withdrawn when they were most needed.’ Mr Ban thought that more military action was called for.
The world wasn’t passive because it believed in nonresistance. It simply didn’t do anything much. But the result was the same. No one intervened and stopped the killing.
The same year as Ban Ki Moon visited Rwanda, nearly 60 countries came together to counter the threat from Islamic State. They took military action and, in the years that followed, defeated ISIS.
In which of those examples did the world do the right thing?
Perhaps we think, these are matters for our political leaders. We don’t need to trouble ourselves over these difficult ethical questions. But in the UK, the government is elected by the people. So we actually do have to trouble ourselves over such questions.
The same kinds of questions are played out on a smaller scale much closer to home. Police are called to respond to domestic violence. A teacher sees a child bullying another at school. How does Jesus’ instruction ‘Do not resist the one who is evil’ apply?
We have to take a view on what Jesus meant. And we need to do so sooner rather than later. When the moment of testing comes, we will almost certainly need to act quickly. There will be no time for reflection then! We need to do the study and reflection before we face the situation.
So, Matthew 5:39 is an important verse and the passage it comes in is an important passage. But there’s actually more at stake than how we resist the one who is evil.
Another reason why this verse is so important is because how we understand it will influence our view of the Old Testament.
Suppose we understand this verse to mean that Jesus wants us to be pacifists. But in the Old Testament God is not pacifist. That would mean that Jesus is teaching us a new way of doing things. And that would mean that the Old Testament is no longer relevant!
That’s pretty major! But there’s an even more important reason why this verse is so important! How we understand Jesus’ instruction will influence our view of God. If Jesus is calling us to pacifism and nonresistance then HE must believe in pacifism and nonresistance. And since Jesus is one in mind with God the Father, the same must be true of God.
We wouldn’t need to fear this pacifist God. He wouldn’t put anyone to death! But neither would this pacifist God forcefully intervene on our behalf. He wouldn’t send an angel of death to Egypt, for example. But nor would he free the people of Israel.
So, a lot is riding on how we interpret this verse!
How are we to understand Jesus’ words, ‘Do not resist the one who is evil’?
When reading any passage in the Bible, context is vital.
We’re in the Bible, we’re in the Sermon on the Mount, and we’re in a particular passage in the Sermon on the Mount. Each give us context.
Jesus’ subject is the Old Testament law of ‘an eye for an eye’. THE FIRST PIECE OF CONTEXT is what the Old Testament says about that.
There are three passages in the Old Testament which give the “eye for eye” instruction [Exodus 21:22-24; Leviticus 24: 19,20 and Deuteronomy 19:16-21.] In each passage, the measures are carried out in the context of formal trial. They don’t apply to personal affairs.
The three contexts relate to a general case of injury, someone striking a pregnant woman, and someone giving false testimony. Depending on the context, more or less mercy could be shown. The law was nuanced, in other words.
The Old Testament also provided for alternative compensation is some circumstances. For example, if a master hit a slave and knocked his tooth out, the slave had to be given their freedom. I think that alternative compensation was almost always employed. I can’t think of a single example in the Bible of an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth punishment being literally carried out. According to John Stott, by Jesus’ day literal retaliation for damages had almost certainly been replaced by money penalties or ‘damages.’
As well as the passages which talk about ‘an eye for an eye’, there are many passages in the Old Testament which emphasise mercy and restraint, which call on God’s people to overlook offences, to be generous in giving, to not pay a person back for a wrong they have done them.
So, the Old Testament law is sensible, fair and nuanced. There was no problem with the law. The issue was with the way people were interpreting the law.
For example, if a person simply heard ‘an eye for an eye’ they might want to apply it in all sorts of minor, personal situations. They might forget that the law also calls on God’s people to be merciful, to overlook offences.
The point of the ‘eye for an eye’ principle is that in judicial contexts it ensures that punishment is proportionate. A person shouldn’t be put to death for stealing a sheep – as happened to a lady called Ann Baker in 1801. A person’s hand shouldn’t be cut off for theft, as occasionally happens under Sharia law.
Let’s go on to the Sermon on the Mount and THE SECOND PIECE OF CONTEXT. It comes in Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus said:
‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.’
Probably most of us have signed a contract at some time. Contracts sometimes start with a section which we might call ‘preamble’. The preamble sets out what the words and terms in the contract mean. Jesus does the same in his sermon. Before he talks about anger, lust, divorce and oaths and not-resisting, he gives some preamble. He says that he has NOT come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. He isn’t negating the Law or the Prophets.
So when we come to ‘do not resist’ we need to remember what Jesus said. ‘Do not resist’ MUST fit with the Old Testament.
Let’s move to the passage which our verse is set in for OUR THIRD PIECE OF CONTEXT. This is Matthew 5:21-48. Jesus is teaching on a variety of subjects: anger, lust, oaths, not-resisting and loving your enemies. He starts with the phrase, ‘You have heard that it was said.’ It’s a curious phrase and it’s obviously important because Jesus uses it five times. Why does Jesus start with it?
Jesus is homing in on what people HEARD WAS SAID. Can there be a difference between WHAT WAS SAID and WHAT PEOPLE HEARD WAS SAID? Of course there can! It happens at work, at home, in church.
God has spoken to us through the Bible. Often, God has quite a bit to say on one particular subject. For example, God commanded ‘You shall not murder’. But he also says a lot about anger. If a preacher only talks about murder but doesn’t say anything about anger that what people hear is only part of what God says.
Jesus told his listeners, ‘You have heard that it was said … ‘You shall not murder’ … But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement.’ People can’t just say to themselves, ‘I’m not a murderer’ and suppose that all is well. They need to think about anger too. There’s a bigger picture.
Before Jesus tells his listeners ‘Do not resist the one who is evil’ he uses the same phrase: ‘You have heard that it was said…’ So we’re strongly expecting that Jesus ISN’T going to teach something brand new. He’s going to correct a mistaken view of God’s law.
Now we come to THE FOURTH AND LAST BIT OF CONTEXT. After Jesus said ‘do not resist the one who is evil’ he gave four examples. We simply mustn’t read ‘do not resist the one who is evil’ in isolation! The examples tell us the kinds of situations which this applies to.
Example one is, ‘if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’
This is offence.
Example two is, ‘if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.’
This is being taken advantage of.
Example three is, ‘if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.’
This is being imposed upon.
Example four is, ‘Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.’
This is being generous and not judgmental.
None of Jesus’ examples is about something in which serious injury could come to a person. You are being SLAPPED, not knifed. None of Jesus’ examples concerns injury or harm to a third party. YOU are being harmed, not your wife or child or neighbour. None of the issues breaks an ethical principle. You are being forced to WALK, not steal.
Jesus’ message is, ‘In such cases, don’t dig your heels in. Go along with it. Forego your rights!’
Jesus isn’t repealing the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the crime. He’s telling us that there are situations in which we should not stand on our rights.
By his examples, Jesus has defined the scope of what he’s talking about. He isn’t talking about what to do if a neighbouring country invades or someone attacks your wife or child. In such cases, you most certainly SHOULD resist the evil person! All Jesus’ examples concern personal matters that don’t affect third parties and don’t contravene important principles.
This is exactly what Jesus practised himself. I could give quite a few examples but I’ll just give two.
Jesus resisted traders and money changers when he drove them out of the temple. And when he was struck on the face while he was being questioned by the High Priest, HE didn’t meekly turn the other cheek! He resisted. He challenged the man who had struck him!
But there was also, of course, a time when he did not resist, when he was led to the cross.
Let me conclude.
Jesus isn’t abolishing or negating anything in the Old Testament. On the contrary, his teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament are completely in harmony.
Jesus isn’t calling us to be pacifists and he isn’t declaring himself a pacifist. He’s the Good Shepherd and he will most certainly resist any evil one who wishes to harm us. And there will be times when he will call on us to resist evil, if necessary, with force. On one occasion God told the prophet Jeremiah, ‘Accursed is the one who is slack in doing the work of the Lord; and accursed is the one who keeps back the sword from bloodshed’ [Jeremiah 48:10]. There are times when God’s people have to fight, for example, when organizations like Islamic State emerge.
We need Christ the lamb and we need Christ the lion. And Christ needs us to sometimes be lambs, and sometimes lions.
Talk given at Rosebery Park Baptist Church, Bournemouth, UK, 26 June 2022
