Turning the Other Cheek
As you see oppression from the political system in your country, as you see injustice happening, you get angry. It is very good to get angry at injustice and sin.
But what does the Bible warn us about?
“Be angry, and do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26)We should not react to injustice and corruption by committing the sin of disobedience to rulers and authorities, as that will be disobeying God’s ordinance:
“He that sets himself in opposition to the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they who [thus] resist shall bring sentence of guilt on themselves.” (Romans 13:2)When the Apostle Paul wrote these things, the ruler or the authority was a Roman conquerer, a despot who persecuted the Christians! Paul asked followers to remain subject to that authority and obey it!
Paul asks Titus to remind the Christian believers of them:
Titus 3:1-2
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.In the day of Jesus, Romans were occupying the land of Israel and oppressing the children of Israel, and there were armed forces resisting the Romans (like Zealots), and there were people expecting that the Messiah would come to save them from the Roman occupation and oppression.
But Jesus simply called to obey Caesar:
“Pay then what is Caesar’s to Caesar” (Matthew 22:21).And Jesus added later:
“My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).Jesus did not come to change a political system or to save the children of Israel from the Roman occupation. Jesus did not come to resist injustices of this world.
Turning the Other Cheek: Gandhi vs. Jesus
There is a difference between Gandhi's nonviolence and Jesus "turning the other cheek". The difference is that Gandhi called for non-violent action, including peaceful resistance to a malevolent authority, whereas Jesus took the path of non-response or the path of inaction.
This difference is clear in the approaches that Gandhi and Jesus took in their respective lives. Gandhi chose non-aggression or non-violent means, such as Public burning of British made clothes or producing salt from salt water in a stand against oppressive salt taxes, in his struggle for fairness under colonial oppression. Jesus simply chose not to offer any resistance at all. Jesus did not rescue, even resist, the land from the control of the Romans. Jesus did not attempt to help the laborers of Rome who were resisting the injustice. Jesus did not free the Jews from their social evils, or restore justice to their nation. In a word, Jesus failed to do the social or political reforming work that was expected of him.
Howard Zinn, a word war II veteran, who fought in the war and saw countless deaths of innocent civilians, wrote in his article titled "A Just Cause, Not a Just War":
Opposing the bombing of Afghanistan does not constitute "giving in to terrorism" or "appeasement." It asks that other means be found than war to solve the problems that confront us. King and Gandhi both believed in action--nonviolent direct action, which is more powerful and certainly more morally defensible than war.
To reject war is not to "turn the other cheek," as pacifism has been caricatured. It is, in the present instance, to act in ways that do not imitate the terrorists.
Terrorism and war have something in common. They both involve the killing of innocent people to achieve what the killers believe is a good end. I can see an immediate objection to this equation: They (the terrorists) deliberately kill innocent people; we (the war makers) aim at "military targets," and civilians are killed by accident, as "collateral damage."
Is it really an accident when civilians die under our bombs? Even if you grant that the intention is not to kill civilians, if they nevertheless become victims, again and again and again, can that be called an accident? If the deaths of civilians are inevitable in bombing, it may not be deliberate, but it is not an accident, and the bombers cannot be considered innocent. They are committing murder as surely as are the terrorists.
Nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience can be justified rationally as the better course of action as it avoids large "collateral damage" from outright war. In offering nonviolent resistance, the practitioner seeks to protest and refuse to comply with unjust laws or policies. Practioner of nonviolent resistance posits that violence distracts from the existing injustices, the unjust laws and policies, and perpetrates violence as a response to violence or injustice.
Henry David Thoreau wrote on civil obligation and law:
Henry David Thoreau wrote on civil obligation and law:
It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only necessary obligation one has is to do at any time what one thinks right." Nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience seeks to singularly focus on the injustice and point out that to those in power that subjects can rightfully reject unjust laws and policies.
The phrase "Turn the other cheek" originates in the Sermon of the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, as diametrically opposed alternative to the Old Testament notion of "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, don’t fight back against someone who wants to do harm to you. If they hit you on the right cheek, let them hit the other cheek too. If anyone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let them have your coat too. If a soldier forces you to walk with him one mile, go with him two. Give to anyone who asks you for something. Don’t refuse to give to anyone who wants to borrow from you.
There are two possible interpretations: (1) Jesus is calling for inaction, or (2) Jesus is calling for nonviolent resistance.
Several English translations translate Matthew 5:39 as: "But I say, do not resist an evil person." This is a clear case of non-resistance and inaction. Could this really be the intent? Was Jesus really preaching inaction or not resisting injustice?
To break this confusion, let us look at the same message from the Sermon on the Plain from the Gospel of Luke.
“But I say to you people who are listening to me, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Ask God to bless the people who ask for bad things to happen to you. Pray for the people who are mean to you. If someone hits you on the side of your face, let them hit the other side too. If someone takes your coat, don’t stop them from taking your shirt too. Give to everyone who asks you for something. When someone takes something that is yours, don’t ask for it back. Do for others what you want them to do for you.
Here the message is unambiguous. Non-violent resistance cannot be love for your enemies. Non-violent resistance cannot be doing good to those who hate you. Thus, Jesus could only have meant inaction and non-resistance to aggression.
The very life of Jesus is an attestation to such non-resistance to aggression. Jesus offered no resistance to crucifixion. Jesus would not even allow his disciples to non-violently protest his crucifixion. As a living example, Jesus was a consummate non-resisting pacifist, even-minded to whatever suffering was in store for him.
It is important to clarify one thing: one should not get caught up in the false dichotomy of fight or flight. Jesus is not advocating flight. This is common to Gandhi as well who faced the harsh police action without fear, standing tall with his conviction. Jesus too is suggesting confidently facing the evil without resorting to any violence.
However, it is clear that Jesus does not call for offering any resistance. Jesus says, Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me? Jesus is willing to receive all that the Father gives him, both the disciples and the suffering. The image of the cup is used in the Old Testament to denote suffering (Ps 75:8) and, in particular, the wrath of God (Is 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15-29; 49:12; Lam 4:21; Ezek 23:31-34; Hab 2:16; cf. Rev 14:10; 16:19).