Turning the other cheek vs. Christian armies

Looking back on the New Testament, one of the most confusing and difficult commandments Jesus gave is the call to resist retaliation.  He said in the book of Matthew, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.  Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.”

In short, Jesus seems to command us to not seek retribution for wrongdoings, ranging from physical assault to lawsuits to legal unfairness, covering the whole gamut of uncomfortable things that nobody likes to have happen to them.  At face value, taken in its most radical and consistent sense, that means you can’t even spank your kid.

If that doesn’t make Christians squirm, Jesus also said that those who love Him and are His children will keep His commandments, so there’s not a whole lot of wiggle room available.  So something has to be wrong here, right?  Otherwise, Jesus is the most radical anarchist who ever existed, demanding the abandonment of all forms of social justice.

But looking a little deeper, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary provides us with some historical context: namely that Rabbinic teachings in that day and age had vastly distorted the original intent of the Levitical law (which happens today, like the Western Left perverting the original meaning of “the pursuit of happiness”).  Originally, the law was provided not to allow others to take revenge into their own hands, but rather to limit the scope of damage when measures of justice are taken. 

According to MacArthur, the rabbis of Jesus’ day had been promoting the idea of personally taking retribution.  Viewing Jesus’ statement in this light, He was combating the idea that retribution was to be taken personally and never denied.  This is later supported by Jesus’ statement that every portion of God’s law was valid, and the eternal punishment for violations would remain in effect until He personally paid the price.  If the Lord’s commandment was to ensure retribution, Jesus’ statement would have contradicted His declaration of God’s perfect law.

The good news is that even though non-retributive policy was instated, this doesn’t mean we’re completely helpless.  Although Jesus’ commandment in this section of Matthew clearly states how the Christian is supposed to behave if accosted by an evil person, the rules change as soon as a third person enters the equation.  After all, if you’re present when someone else is being abused, you’re commanded to operate according to the golden rule, which means sticking up for the person in distress.  This includes children who need protection from bullies, women who would prefer to not be raped, and someone whose car is in the act of being stolen who would not enjoy having their car stolen.  Simply put, although we are commanded to opt out of mandatory retaliation, opting out of defending the weak and helpless stands in diametric opposition to the golden rule, and is more spineless than gracious.

Also caught under the umbrella of the golden rule is denying someone an army for their personal defense.  It’s fine if you personally turn the other cheek, but forcing someone to fall under the threat of oppression in the name of “peace” is immoral under the golden rule.  After all, not having an army is like putting a sign on someone’s house that says “bully me,” which I’m assuming isn’t something someone wouldn’t enjoy. Furthermore, Jesus had contact with the servants of a Roman centurion whom he stated had more faith than any other Israelite, and Jesus is pretty clear that our faith in Him is what saves us.  Also worth noting is that the apostles used the term “soldier” and many other military terms as positive references for those serving Christ.  If being a soldier was a moral offense against Jesus Christ, you can bet your paycheck that the apostle Paul (who was confirmed as one of the brethren by Peter) would probably have avoided using the profession as a description of Yahweh’s children.  It’s not like the Apostle Paul called the church to act like tax collectors for Jesus.

And when dealing with children, the Bible is pretty clear that a loving parent cares about giving their kid a solid moral structure–which the reader must be reminded is necessary for keeping the child out of serious trouble later in life– and will spank their child when the kid allows their sin nature to override proper training.  This is the same reason you send your kid to school even though they’d rather play video games: because their adult life is going to be a whole lot worse if all they know how to do is play Mario Kart. 

The last idea that people constantly misconstrue about this whole “turning the other cheek” idea is regarding the confrontation of sin, or rather avoidance of it.  When dealing with offending members of the church, Christ commanded that we approach the offender privately, not simply accept the wrongdoing.  If your brother or sister won’t listen, take one or two Christians with you as backup.  And if they won’t listen to all two or three of you, bring the offender before the church and state your grievance.  If they won’t listen to the whole church, then the church is to treat them like “a tax collector and a heathen.” This clearly stands in contrast to absolute pacifism and lawlessness, and is a perfect example of how Christ’s commandment has more to do with repentance and forgiveness than anarchy.

And let’s not forget those outside the church.  The book of John clearly states that the conviction of sin predicates salvation, so a nonchalant and “tolerant” attitude toward those living in sin isn’t going to help them in any spiritual sense, especially when Jesus Himself stated that the alternative to accepting salvation is damnation in Hell.  But even in a limited and earthly perspective, Christians have to recognize the idea that the universe is built upon eternal principles, and that adherence to these principles will bring success and happiness, and that lives built upon untruths only serve to bring misery and failure.  If we have the truth, we need to share it if we truly love our fellow man. After all, Christ’s apostles wouldn’t have traveled around Israel calling others to repentance if Jesus had already nicely asked them to leave others to their own sin.

So don’t worry: Jesus isn’t suggesting to get rid of all laws, morals, and armies.  What He is saying is that when you’re personally wronged, trust in God to judge righteously, and then stun the world with your unworldly forgiveness. Christ is clear that conversion begins with the understanding that God’s code–which exists within each of us–has been violated. When someone violates the law and you show Christ’s love in return, you cause the offender’s conscience to burn within them.

So yes: the order to turn the other cheek is still tall, but we are not alone.  If we were dead to the light and separated from Christ’s power, behaving as Christ wills would be impossible.  But the truth is that if we’ve been born again, if we have faith that Jesus Christ is the risen Son of the Most Holy God, then we must be prepared to accept His commandments at face value.  And so we will.  After all, He reached down from the heavens while we were still His enemies, being willing to lay down His life so that we could live.  If that is why we love Him, that is why others will love us and see Him in us.  So go forth in peace today and turn the other cheek.  Just remember not to lose any sense of morality when doing it.

This entry was posted on 4. July 2009 at 17:07 and is filed under Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print