Eye for an eye?
Jesus and active non-violence
You have heard that it was spoken, “Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you not to resist the evil person. Rather, whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him also. And to the one desiring to indict you and to take your tunic, let him have your coat, too. And whoever conscripts you for one mile, go with him two. To the one who asks, give and to the one wishing to borrow, do not turn away. Matthew 5:37–42
Jesus acted out this admonition all the way to the cross.
And in so doing, he exposed evil for what it is and the Evil One for who he is.
In Plain Sight is a subscriber supported publication. If you appreciate the content and insights of this Substack, please consider a paid subscription. Subscribers receive additional material at the end of most posts with more subscriber only material to come.
Eye for eye and tooth for tooth
In the next in his series of “antitheses” in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus returned to a direct quotation from the Old Testament.
He used the phrase “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” found in Exodus 21, Leviticus 24, and Deuteronomy 19:
And if harm happened, then give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 21:23-25
And if a man causes injury to his neighbor, the same he shall thus do to him: Break for break, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, just as he gives injury to a person, so shall it be given to him. Leviticus 24:19-20
If a malicious witness arises against a man to answer to him falsely … you shall do to him as he planned to do to his brother … life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Deuteronomy 19:16, 19, 21.
The law of Moses articulates in these verses what is called the lex talionis or law of retaliation. Its purpose is straightforward: an ordered society (in that case, Israelite society) needs clear limits to violence and one of those limits is reciprocal punishment.
What we perceive as crude retaliation is still practiced in many Muslim contexts around the world in the form of sharia law (and even cruder, revenge killings).
But in “civilized” countries, we still have the same principle.
When someone breaks a law or causes harm to property or person, the law-making bodies have developed what are called “punishments that fit the crime.”
Criminal behavior is usually met with prison time instead of exacting a body part, or fines to recoup or punish financial misconduct.
It is just more “civilized.”
Whether our version of punishment is more effective is another issue. And “life for life” is still a potential outcome in death penalty states.
The judicial system is in place to mete out impartial justice (in principle).
But as is evident (I believe), the entire system of justice is itself given to corruption by those in power and may reward wrong-doers at the expense of victims (or “victims” at the expense of the wrongly accused).
Further, neither the lex talionis nor the modern penal code changes hearts. For the victims, their normal response to the punishment is “they deserve it.” For the perpetrators, there may or may not be remorse.
And if the perpetrator feels unjustly convicted, he may desire revenge.
Confession and forgiveness are in short supply.
The penal code may be a viable way of keeping violence at bay, but not eliminating it, and certainly not for transforming society to a loving one.
Nor in exposing corruption perpetrated by the evil one.
Enter Jesus
Once again, Jesus never dispensed with the original statement. The law is the law and the system will carry out the law as it sees fit.
He never denounced the Scriptures.
Instead Jesus turned the entire human enterprise of self-preservation, retaliation, and revenge on its head (which he will continue to do in the last antithesis: “Love your enemy”).
He wanted to expose the evil heart and to show how to transform the world.
Rather than respond in kind—lex talionis—Jesus told his listeners (to paraphrase), “let them do what they will do and respond by giving them the choice to do more of it.”
Do not resist the evil one
A little noticed detail in this whole verse is the entity Jesus told his listeners not to resist: the evil person.
The focus usually goes immediately to “turn the other cheek,” “go a second mile,” “give also your coat.”
This section has nothing to do with charity.
It has everything to do with how we respond to evil-doers.
The Greek noun phrase tō ponērō could be translated “evil” (KJV and a few others), but most translations rightly have “evil person” or the like. Jesus used “from the evil one (ek tou ponērou) in 5:37 and he will again in the Lord’s prayer in 6:13, both in reference to Satan. In this verse “the evil one” could refer to Satan, but more naturally refers to a person acting out an evil deed (and thus in Satan’s clutches).
By using this phrase, Jesus limited his subsequent examples to those who carry out actions from impure/evil/wicked motives. The NLB gets the gist: “do not resist violence!” which imbeds an actor and the action.
But by saying this, don’t Jesus’s words fly in the face of such statements like James 4:7, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you,” or the similar one in 1 Peter 5:9?
Not if we understand that Jesus’s words are actually the means to resist the devil.
(devilish) responses to evil
When someone does something to me wrongly, my normal response may be something like, “that’s not fair,” or “I’ll get you back for that,” or “I will take you to court (or countersue).” Or more aggressively I might take matters into my own hands and respond physically with a fist (or gun), or taking a stolen item back (I am not speaking of domestic abuse or rape, when the absolute best thing is to resist and run).
When we resist with a reciprocal response of what ever kind, we become doubles or mirror images of the person we resist. To fight back is to be on the same plane as the initiator of the punch, to counter-sue is to be on the same plane as the suer, to resent the compulsion to go a mile is to put yourself on the same level as the one who forces you. To refuse to give is to be the same as the one who takes.
There is also another side: I may be passive in quietly agreeing or giving into what is wrongly requested.
But a non-response is just as bad as an aggressive one.
To acquiesce and allow the evil person to keep doing what they have done with no response at all is to affirm that their evil is ok. “I’ll just let it go this time and maybe it will get better.” The Hitlers of the world will just keep doing their thing.
Both responses are what the Devil wants.
In so doing, we reinforce the very enmity that Satan desires to keep multiplying in the world.
The active non-violent response to evil
Instead of a reciprocal response to the evil person, Jesus called for an active non-violent response. Do not resist the evil person, but openly invite them to keep responding with the same actions.
There is an enormous (and clear) assumption in Jesus litany of responses: evil has already happened!
To resist violently is to involve yourself with the evil.
To do nothing reinforces the evil person’s belief that he has power over another person.
What about another type of resistance? Make them be more evil.
The active non-violent response forces the perpetrator to multiply their evil if they keep going.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. both took Jesus’s words seriously.
The British and the leaders in the Jim Crow South had to make the choice for evil or good.
For Rosa Parks, evil was constantly being forced upon her, so she sat down, she refused to participate, she turned the other cheek, and made them force her off the bus.
Those crossing the Selma bridge in 1965 were turning the other cheek (and walking the second mile). Bloody Sunday was the result for the entire world to see.
To turn the other cheek makes the perpetrator decide to hit it.
To go the second mile forces the compeller to consider the first mile.
To give the coat too (and thus to be naked, because the tunic is already gone), graphically forces the indicting person to face their initial (evil) charge.
Jesus
Jesus knew and saw all of the evil being carried out in all of history.
So he walked straight to the epicenter of religion gone amok and state power gone amok.
He set his face to go to Jerusalem as Luke 9:51 puts it.
Jesus’s mere appearance in Jerusalem forced the hand of the authorities. They had to get rid of Jesus because he spoke the truth about their evil.
He allowed himself to be arrested (and told the disciples to put their swords away).
He allowed himself to be scourged, spit upon, accused of blasphemy, forced to carry a cross, and nailed naked to that cross.
He freely gave his life—the ultimate turning the other cheek, going the second mile, letting your cloak go too, giving when asked.
All as an innocent man who told the truth and lived the truth he told.
And they gladly hit again, forced, made naked, and took (his life).
In so doing their evil (and ours) was exposed for all of history to see.
And he forgave them their evil—he loved his enemies.
God help us do the same.