Introduction
The passage we read is at least on the surface one of the most difficult passages in the Bible, if we are to live by it. Every time you here the passage preached or talked about there is always a but, or a bit that says it doesn’t mean this. Or sometimes but it can’t mean this, Jesus couldn’t really expect us to live like that. The most common one I’ve heard, is but we’re not expected to be doormats. Well, what does Jesus mean by these words? Does Jesus expect us to go round and be doormats? Isn’t this passage just setting the standard a little to high, isn’t it asking just a little too much for ordinary everyday Christians.
Well for starters, this passage is often misinterpreted and Jesus is not asking us to become doormats. There is a specific context to each of Jesus statements, about striking the other cheek, giving away your cloak when you are sued for your tunic and going the extra mile. This context allows us to understand what Jesus was saying. One commentator calls them cartoons. Little brief situations that highlight in extreme form some principals that Jesus is trying to get across. Indeed they functioned for Jesus in exactly the same way as some of our modern political cartoons that you can find in newspapers today. Some of you might remember us looking at this passage when we looked at the issue of War in our Bible Studies to see what God said about it. However, then we were merely concerned with whether this passage ruled out war. Now however, we want to look at what it means for us in everyday life. Of course for those that weren’t at the Bible study and for those that need their memories refreshed, we will look at the situations that Jesus was talking to. But the questions we need to ask is what difference does it make to our lives. We aren’t facing the same situations that Jesus and his listeners were facing, so how does what Jesus said apply to us. Unfortunately for those who are looking for an easy way out, Jesus doesn’t give you one. To understand Jesus in his context and apply it to us does not mean an easy way out. It is hard. But it is also possible with Jesus help and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Turing the other Cheek
The first situation that Jesus introduces us to, is that when someone strikes you on the right cheek you should turn to them the other. Our first thoughts on this one might be that it means when we are threatened with violence or actual violence is used against us, not only should we not resist even if we are able but that we should deliberately leave ourselves open to further attack and damage. I faced this situation once. I was travelling home on the train from Glasgow, on my way to run a youth activity in our church. There was a group of 3 teenagers sitting in a group around where I had chosen to sit. Now while they were younger than I, they were a good deal bigger, perhaps not quite Aled size but big enough. They were basically out to start a fight. So throughout the kind of build up, I just ignored all the insults and comments that were thrown against me, thinking they would leave me along, but no they decided that was not enough. So they attacked. Did this passage have anything to say to me? In an enclosed space, surrounded by 3 attackers should I try and fight back, should I try to get by them and run, was it ok to keep dodging blows and bringing up hands to deflect the blows, or should I just stand there arms by my side and let them continue to hit and hit and hit. Or should I follow the example of someone who says you turn the other cheek but it doesn’t say what you do to them when they hit that cheek.
You see this interpretation of this passage goes beyond even a pacifist attitude which says we shouldn’t hit back but we can at least run away. People who argue that this passage means pacifism don’t really know what to do with this extra bit. Was Jesus just exaggerating for effect, to make a point through hyperbole. Like when we say, I’ve told you a thousand times not to exaggerate.
Or we can take Jesus words at face value and think about the situation that he is describing. We are told that this involves being struck on the right cheek. No remember we are talking about a world where being left handed was looked down upon and even those who were left handed always used their right hands anyway. So now imagine squaring up to an opponent. In fact turn and face the person sitting beside you. Touch your own right cheek, now how can you strike the person sitting opposite you on the cheek they are touching with your right hand. You certainly can’t punch them. The only way you can hit them on the right cheek is if you slap them with the back of your hand. Now before you act I’m not asking you to do that. Although, if we did it might be interesting to see how many would turn the other cheek. But anyway, what that little experiment has established is that Jesus was talking about a slap from the back of the hand.
Now why is that important. Well have any of you seen movies or read books about the middle ages, involving Knights and nobility. Or possibly you’ve seen or read The Three Muskateers. If you have then you will now that to strike someone on the cheek with the back of your hand is the ultimate insult. Why? This was how slaves and women were treated by people of higher social classes when they displeased them. Now we do recognise that women are equal with men, Jesus certainly treated them that way, but for the time, women were treated as inferior and incapable of standing up to men. To slap someone with the back of your hand, was to treat them with contempt. To treat them as less than human, not able to strike back.
For a person who was struck like so, to then turn the other cheek, the left cheek, was to offer the person the cheek they would need to strike with a fist rather than the back of a hand. It was to reject the claim of inferiority, it was to claim, I am not worthless, I do not deserve your contempt. Treat me like a man, in other words. If you are going to strike me, do it as you would with an equal and someone worthy of your respect. This was not becoming a door mat. This was standing up for yourself and your dignity. This was issuing a challenge but without hitting back and stooping to their level. This was about making a statement without resorting to violence. By the same token, if someone was intent on beating you up they wouldn’t start with a backhanded slap. A backhanded slap was a dismissal, a sign you were not worth beating up. Something that put you in your place.
So on one hand, Jesus is proposing a way to answer a deadly insult without starting a fight, without descending to the level of the wicked. On the other hand Jesus is not describing a situation where you need to defend yourself or your family and telling you, you could not.
Giving away your cloak
Now the second situation. If someone sues you for your tunic give him your cloak as well. Does this mean that when you are jumped in the street by a bunch of young criminals who demand that you hand over your mobile phone that the appropriate response is to say, ok, and while your at it why don’t you take my wallet as well, there’s some money in it, a credit card oh and by the way my pin number is 1234. Just before you go, here’s my car keys as well, it’s parked in the multi-story car park, and here’s the money you’ll need to pay for the parking. It’s ridiculous but it’s also what many think that Jesus is getting at. No wonder people dismiss the sermon on the mount as unworkable and unliveable. Once again we need to think about exactly what Jesus said and what kind of situation he is implying.
Firstly, we note that among the poor, which would be the vast majority of people living in Israel at the time, there were only two garments that were worn. The tunic and the cloak. An inner and outer garment. While it’s not true to say that they would only have one tunic and one cloak, it probably was true of at least some and most would probably only own one cloak. Now Jesus is talking about a situation where someone is being sued for a tunic. This is not a robber waiting by the side of the road to jump someone and steal all they have. This is someone taking you to a court of law and suing you. Why would they do this?
Israel at the time like so many societies since, was one in which there were a lot of poor and a few rich who exploited and abused the poor. They corrupted and bribed their courts so that justice was denied to those without money. And as long as they weren’t going it to Roman citezans and not causing so much bother that a revolt took place the Romans authorities didn’t care and even joined in the exploiting. So how could a rich man sue a poor man for his cloak. Well, it’s easy to imagine how a poor man might get into debt, he might owe rent on his farm, when the crops were poor. There might not be much demand for his trade that month but the rent was still due. Or there might have been a fire which destroyed the wood he was carving so there was no money. The point is that if someone is being sued for his tunic, which it would be fair to say would not actually be worth that much money, that it could only be because that was all that he had left. It was unfair, it was exploitation. It was taking advantage of circumstances by someone who already had a lot to take the very essentials from someone who had nothing. It was fair for someone who was owed money to try and collect but stooping to the level of taking a man’s tunic because it was all he had left was going to far. We have sayings about this in English, where if someone is mean and exploitive, we say they’ll take the clothes of you back. This was literally the situation that Jesus was describing. For those of you who have seen a Knight’s Tale this will remind you of the scene where we are introduced to Geoffrey Chaucer, where this literally happens to him. Jesus says in this case give them your cloak as well, stand naked in the court. Make them see that this is what they are doing to you, leaving you with nothing. In such a way they could shame the one suing them and show publicly exactly what they are doing. Note also that Jesus was saying this in a context where they could not win. Both because they did actually owe them money and because the courts were corrupt so they had no chance of a fair hearing anyway. They were going to loose but Jesus suggests a way to make a point when they do.
Another case of showing up the inequality, the injustice and the wrong doer, without resorting to wrong doing themselves. They weren’t to refuse to pay a debt they owed or rise up in rebellion or try to fight. They were to give exactly what they owed but in a manner that showed up just how evil and shameful it was for the person who demanded it.
Going the extra mile
Finally, there is the case of going the extra mile. This example is perhaps the one where we are most familiar with the situation Jesus described. In the time of Jesus, Judea and Galilee where under the control of the Romans. The Romans soldiers had a rule that they could force a local to carry their equipment for one mile. Obviously, the local, the Jews in this case, where highly resentful of this. Not only did they have to suffer the indignity of being conquered and occupied by Roman Soldiers but they were required to help them and carry the equipment they used to conquer and oppress. There were no doubt many who rebelled against such commands and where consequently killed or taken as slaves. It is also no doubt that when someone rebelled they sparked that flame of rebellion, that was never hidden very deeply anyway, in those around them as well and it would not just be one who died. Instead Jesus urges a different strategy, go the extra mile. Firstly, this showed the Romans, what their God was like, generous and forgiving. But it also had an effect of shaming and causing problems that the first two examples had as well. What would happen to the soldier when his commander found out that a local had carried his equipment two miles. Would he believe a story about a Jew, those who hated the Romans, would volunteer to carry his stuff for two miles. Usually you had deep resentment when you didn’t have to put down a minor rebellion just to get one mile. No they would assume that soldier had broken the law and forced them to walk two. The soldier would get into trouble. And even if this didn’t actually happen, i.e. the commanding officer didn’t actually find out, the soldier would be worried about it. Again it was a way of showing how wrong the action was without doing anything wrong. Without descending to the same level or resorting to violence but still making the same point.
For us
So what can we learn for ourselves today from these cartoons of Jesus. Well before we move to our exact situations, we should remember those in more modern times who have followed this teaching of Jesus. In America we we have the example of Martin Luther King, who successfully urged the oppressed blacks in the US to rise up but not to violence but to civil disobedience, to marches, to boycott buses and shops that practised discrimination. And they won. They achieved their goals. They drew attention to their situation, shamed their persecutors and won, without ever breaking the law, resorting to violence or sinking to the level of their persecutors. A similar thing happened to Ghandi in India. Both had this in common, they had no hope of achieving their aims by force, but they won by standing up for themselves in other ways. Some day we may face similar situations, I hope not, but if we ever do, here Jesus has provided the blue print for dealing with them.
However, putting these stories in context, means we don’t have to give in to burglars, you don’t have to give them you wallet when they just ask for your mobile phone, we don’t have to let people beat us up when we could defend ourselves. But what does it mean for us. Does it have an application beyond civil disobedience and non-violent resistance. As we have been looking at in past weeks, does this tell us how to please God in our lives. It does provide an attitude that we can follow in situations. These cartoons or examples are set in the middle of teaching about loving our enemies. Jesus wasn’t exaggerating here, he really does mean for us to love our enemies and to want good for them. At the same time Jesus tells us that we must resist evil. He discouraged his followers from using violent means that were doomed to failure to resist evil but then he gives them 3 examples of resisting evil in other ways. Put these two together and it means loving people who do evil but hating and opposing their evil. Of doing what we can to show their evil as evil. At least two of Jesus examples are designed to show up what the person is really doing, to show it is evil. We must do the same. We looked last week at the economic exploitation in our modern world. But there are also other issues. Homosexuality, were we are to love and accept people but still reject their sin. Gossips who can destroy relationships and churches by their malicious sharing of private details. We should love and accept them but come up with creative ways of showing them they evil they spread without descending to their level. Perhaps it does mean some sort of non violent response to when we are threatened with violence. But whatever it is, it is not to be a doormat. It is to stand up for what is right and just but to do so in a loving and right and just way.
As I was thinking about this on Saturday after we had some bother with some of our youth group on Friday refusing to leave, it made me think. Our situation is not that different to to some of what Jesus describes. OK, on one hand if we really had to, we could beat them up, but the law is on their side and we can’t touch them. So in many ways they have the advantage. Do we need to think creatively based on Jesus model to come up with a way of dealing with them without resorting to their level. Yes, of course, what that is I don’t know yet, but we can pray and ask God to guide us.
Conclusions
I guess this isn’t a very satisfying place to finish but it is where we will finish none the less. Not with answers, because in a way there are none. But rather with a challenge and questions. How do we live this kind of life in the world. We can’t sit down and work out every situation we face. But we can face them all with the same attitude. An attitude that is willing to resist evil. And attitude that is willing to take hurt, risk ridicule and disadvantage ourselves to resist evil. But one that is unwilling to stoop to evil’s level. One that is determined to follow Jesus. And one that loves the evil doer. One that is willing to love and accept the person, while doing all we can oppose their actions. As I said, this isn’t a easy option. It’s challenging and worthwhile, but it is not easy.
