Lectionary: Epiphany 7(C)
Texts: Genesis 45:3-11, 15; Psalm 37:1-11, 39-40; Luke 6:27-38
Love Your Enemies
27 “But I say to you who
are listening: Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; 28
bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27-28
NRSVue, and remainder of sermon)
The word “enemies” literally means in Greek “one you hate” or
“one who hates”. How does one love one’s enemies? The three phrases paralleling
the first expound on the first to provide examples of how one accomplishes that
kind of love.
The love that is being spoken by Luke here is not about
feelings and emotions. It is about actions. I doubt any of us have kind of good
feelings toward our enemies, and we are not being called to develop nice
feelings toward them. But we cannot hate them in return for their hate toward
us. To do so would have us become the very thing that we oppose. Instead, when
we are faced with mistreatment, our response must be to reciprocate with good, offer
grace, and pray for them.
Jesus continues with examples of how one loves their enemy
using several scenarios. He summarizes this set with what we often refer to as the
golden rule.
29 If anyone strikes you
on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat do
not withhold even your shirt. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you,
and if anyone takes away what is yours, do not ask for it back again. 31
Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:29-31)
The issue with these texts is that they have been
misunderstood and misused. They have been used to excuse, condone, and profit
from slavery. They have been used and are used to keep victims of violence
quiet and submissive. To use these texts in these ways is wrong and evil. These
texts do not require people to remain in places of harm or to remain quiet and continue
to suffer abuse and evil. Rather, a proper understanding and interpretation show
what Jesus meant with these words.
Reciprocity
The gospel of Matthew includes these same sayings, in
slightly different form. Matthew’s version includes a few details that offer
clues to a better understanding.
38 “You have heard that
it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I
say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn the other also…” (Matthew 5:38-39)
From how Jesus introduces this discussion, we understand
that the subject under consideration is reciprocal violence. Jesus quotes from
the Torah regarding what is permitted under Jewish law. Sometimes the “eye for
an eye” has been interpreted as something that must be done in response to
violence, but it is a limitation on how much reciprocal violence is allowed. And
by the time of Jesus, such bodily mutilation was usually not exacted.
A commentary explains:
Christian interpreters have often
mistaken the rule of measure for measure (“an eye for an eye”) as an example of
justice without mercy or love (5:38; Exod 21:24–25; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21).
However, this ancient rule, found in Mesopotamian law, limited the response to
injury and insult to a proportionate punishment and brought an orderly end to
blood feuds. As interpreted in the Second Temple period, satisfaction was
customarily sought through monetary compensation rather than mutilation.
In an honor-shame society, reciprocal violence is the
flipside of reciprocal hospitality and gift-giving. When one was the recipient
of violence, shame came along with it, and it was necessary for the family or
tribe suffering the shame to restore their lost honor through exacting
vengeance upon the perpetrator. When one side regained honor, the other side
then lost honor, and the cycle could easily escalate. The Torah sought to
prevent this cycle from spiraling out of control by permitting one act of vengeance
and only proportionate to the original harm.
But Jesus comes along and further limits reciprocal violence
by telling his disciples that for them, vengeance is completely off the table
as an option to respond to violence. “Do not resist and evildoer” could be
taken literally, but it can also be read as, “Do not seek revenge against
someone who has harmed you.”
Turning the Other Cheek
We next come to the “turn the other cheek” instruction. It
could easily be seen as instruction to be a doormat in the face of violence, to
just suck it up and receive the abuse. However, Matthew’s detail about the
“right cheek” helps us understand how “turn the other cheek” is a form of
active resistance while disengaging from retaliating with violence.
If someone was in front of you and slapped you, would it be
possible to slap you on the right cheek? Only by using the left hand, correct?
However, the left hand was considered unclean and used only to perform unclean
tasks. To use the left hand to slap someone would also render unclean the
person using the left hand to slap. Therefore, the slap had to be with right
hand. The only kind of slap possible with the right hand to the right cheek is
a backhand slap, a slap meant to demean, humiliate, and shame the one that is
slapped. It is reserved for those that are of lower social standing than the
one who is slapping. It is reserved for non-citizens, women, children, servants
and slaves.[1]
When Jesus instructs the one being slapped to turn the other
cheek (left), he is offering a creative solution to the problem of violence. The
two usual options are to accept disrespect and dehumanization and walk away, or
to respond in kind which might be the most natural desire but could have deadly
consequences. Instead, Jesus’ solution is to assert one’s humanity and demand
respect without resorting to violence. To offer the left check means that the
slap must be done with an open hand or a fist, actions that are reserved for
social equals. The one slapping is put into an awkward and humiliating
position. He cannot slap or punch without acknowledging the other’s equality,
but to do so would undermine himself and the social hierarchies that were
believed necessary to maintain order from the gods down to the slaves.
Jesus’ solution puts a wrench into the expected cycle of
violence. It is anti-violence.
Jesus Commands Anti-Violence
Toward the end of today’s gospel reading, we heard Jesus’
words, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will
not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven…” (Luke 6:37)
In The Anti-Greed Gospel, Malcolm Foley writes,
Jesus didn’t mince words about the
logic of retaliation and revenge. Christians are called to consider their lives
and the situations in which they might be tempted to seek revenge and refuse to
do so…
If we cannot stomach one thing, it
is someone getting away with evil. Yet when we retaliate, we are
refusing to do the hardest and most essential action we are called by Christ to
do, which is to forgive. In fact, the refusal to respond to evil with evil is
what the kingdom of God is about…!
Is it hard to forgive, to eat a
cost, to not strike back when we are struck? Of course! But none of that has
any bearing on whether or not Christ has told us to do so. And he has. This
takes violence off the table for the Christian.”
It needs to be restated, however, that this does not mean
that a Christian is required to stay in unsafe places, where they continue to
receive abuse. This is especially true of victims and survivors of domestic
violence.
I should also define what I mean when I use the term violence.
It is not just physical violence. Violence includes anything that diminishes a
person’s ability to flourish as a human being. This includes financial and
emotional violence: withholding means to live, threatening harm or loss, and so
on. This includes inhumane government policies and indiscriminate firings. This
includes poverty and homelessness.
No Exceptions
“But what about self-defense or national defense?” one might
object. First, it must be asked, “Why are we so eager to find exceptions to
anti-violence?” Historically, the first three centuries of Christian tradition
was decidedly pacifist. Only after Constantine did Christianity cozy itself up
to war and began endorsing warfare as a means of legitimating itself in the
eyes of violent nations and empires.[2]
On the question of self-defense we only need to look at Jesus in the Garden of
Gethsemane, when he tells Peter to put down his sword and heals the ear of
Malchus, which Peter had just cut off. Jesus furthermore offers to his enemy a
gift of healing in response to the hate he is being subjected to.
When someone takes your coat, give him also your shirt. The
first is a violent taking, a violation of one’s humanity. But the response is
to give a gift.
In Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, the
authors explain,
First, reciprocity is assumed and
permeates the passage. Second, Jesus is redefining reciprocity but not
eliminating it. Those who are harmed feel they should reciprocate harm. Part of
reciprocity was that you reciprocated love to your friend and harm to your
enemy… Jesus redefines reciprocity… Giving the coat [shirt in Luke] is a gift—a
gift to an adversary. This is not a disinterested gift. Gifts in his reciprocal
world sought to establish friendships. Giving the coat would be a gesture of
magnanimity, goodwill, even a desire for relationship. It seeks to turn the
adversary into a friend.
Impractical and Pie-In-the-Sky?
My vision, so accustomed to seeing the world through its eyes
and thinking about these things in terms of its power and logic… I find it
difficult to see how any of what Jesus is commanding could work. But let us not
mince words here: Jesus is commanding his disciples to respond with gifts,
mercy, and forgiveness to enemies and the hurts, harms, abuses, and threats
they bring.
We can’t imagine how this could work. But it has been tried.
It was first tried during the first three centuries of Christianity. The Roman
empire was so threatened by this Christian response that they brought
Christianity into the fold of empire to tame and control it.
It was tried by Mahatma Gandhi, who learned about Jesus’
anti-violence through Leo Tolstoy’s work, The Kingdom of God is Within You,
which in turn was influenced by American Christians Adin Ballou and William
Lloyd Garrison who wrote against governments engaged in violence and war. Through
Gandhi’s non-violent resistance, India was freed of its colonizing powers.[3]
And influenced by Gandhi, nonviolent resistant was employed
by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his efforts to extend civil rights to African
Americans.
A BBC article reports on research by Erica Chenoweth, a
political scientist at Harvard University which
… confirms that civil disobedience
is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world
politics – by a long way… Overall, nonviolent campaigns were twice as likely to
succeed as violent campaigns: they led to political change 53% of the time
compared to 26% for the violent protests… Once around 3.5% of the whole
population has begun to participate actively, success appears to be inevitable.
However, the method of nonviolence, the way of anti-violence,
often does not bring immediate results. It is a way that is often lined with
patient suffering and even martyrdom.
Following Christ’s Example
The powers of this world are maintained and enforced through
threats, acts of fear and violence. Jesus came to establish a different kind of
society and community—one based on love and giving—where hierarchies and power
mongering would be dismantled and destroyed. No wonder the principalities and
powers of this world felt threatened and executed Jesus. He lived his platform
of anti-violence to the very end. He did not speak any words of vengeance upon
those who took part in his execution. He did not take revenge upon any of them
after his resurrection. Jesus, through his death and resurrection, broke the
cycle of violence, leaving his disciples an example to follow.
We, who claim Christ’s heritage and gospel as our own, must
follow in his footsteps. We must take an unequivocal stand against violence,
against the threat of violence, and against the fears that they invoke. We must
never resort to violence in our striving to promote and establish justice and
righteousness. We must never dehumanize those that oppose us but instead respond
with grace, mercy and love. We must work tirelessly to resist empire and break
cycles of violence in and around us.
In closing, I again quote from Malcolm Foley,
We are encouraged to make
exceptions to Christ’s commands because we think he asks too much of us. It is
far too difficult for me to think creatively about resisting violence when I
can lash out at my aggressor. It is far too difficult for me to respond with
grace and love when my enemy is insistent on treating me like garbage. But
violence and retaliation are the least creative responses to evil. The body of
Christ is called to holy creativity.
In the name of God who is Peace,
In the name of God who is Love,
In the name of God who empowers us to confront evil with
creativity, Amen.
Bibliography
Barron, R. (2022, August 11). Why ‘turning the
other cheek’ is fundamentally misunderstood. Retrieved from YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHIW5UDT1n8
Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans
Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.
Foley, M. (2025). The Anti-Greed Gospel: Why the
Love of Money Is the Root of Racism and How the Church Can Create a New Way
Forward. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
Foley, S. (2022, October 14). Turn the Other
Cheek: the radical case for nonviolent resistance. Retrieved from CBC
Radio:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/turn-the-other-cheek-the-radical-case-for-nonviolent-resistance-1.6616634
Grace, S. (2025, February 18). Love Is Action.
Retrieved from Companions on the Way:
https://www.companionsontheway.com/post/love-is-action
Richards, E. R., & James, R. (2020). Misreading
Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the
Biblical World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Roberts, K. (2016, January 14). Turn the Other
Cheek? (Explained in Context). Retrieved from Patheos:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unsystematictheology/2016/01/turn-the-other-cheek-explained-in-context/
Robson, D. (2019, May 13). The '3.5% rule': How a
small minority can change the world. Retrieved from BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
No comments:
Post a Comment