'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth: 39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also. 40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take
away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41. And whosoever shall
compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42. Give to him that
asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou
away.'--MATT. v. 38-42.
The old law directed judges to inflict penalties precisely equivalent to
offences--'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' (Exod. xxi. 24),
but that direction was not for the guidance of individuals. It was
suited for the stage of civilisation in which it was given, and probably
was then a restriction, rather than a sanction, of the wild law of
retaliation. Jesus sweeps it away entirely, and goes much further than
even its abrogation. For He forbids not only retaliation but even
resistance. It is unfortunate that in this, as in so many instances,
controversy as to the range of Christ's words has so largely hustled
obedience to them out of the field, that the first thought suggested to
a modern reader by the command 'Resist not evil' (or, an evil man) is
apt to be, Is the Quaker doctrine of uniform non-resistance right or
wrong, instead of, Do I obey this precept? If we first try to understand
its meaning, we shall be in a position to consider whether it has
limits, springing from its own deepest significance, or not. What, then,
is it not to resist? Our Lord gives three concrete illustrations of what
He enjoins, the first of which refers to insults such as contumelious
blows on the cheek, which are perhaps the hardest not to meet with a
flash of anger and a returning stroke; the second of which refers to
assaults on property, such as an attempt at legal robbery of a man's
undergarment; the third of which refers to forced labour, such as
impressing a peasant to carry military or official baggage or
documents--a form of oppression only too well known under Roman rule in
Christ's days. In regard to all three cases, He bids His disciples
submit to the indignity, yield the coat, and go the mile. But such
yielding without resistance is not to be all. The other cheek is to be
given to the smiter; the more costly and ample outer garment is to be
yielded up; the load is to be carried for two miles. The disciple is to
meet evil with a manifestation, not of anger, hatred, or intent to
inflict retribution, but of readiness to submit to more. It is a hard
lesson, but clearly here, as always, the chief stress is to be laid, not
on the outward action, but on the disposition, and on the action mainly
as the outcome and exhibition of that. If the cheek is turned, or the
cloak yielded, or the second mile trudged with a lowering brow, and hate
or anger boiling in the heart, the commandment is broken. If the inner
man rises in hot indignation against the evil and its doer, he is
resisting evil more harmfully to himself than is many a man who makes
his adversary's cheeks tingle before his own have ceased to be reddened.
We have to get down into the depths of the soul, before we understand
the meaning of non-resistance. It would have been better if the eager
controversy about the breadth of this commandment had oftener become a
study of its depth, and if, instead of asking, 'Are we ever warranted in
resisting?' men had asked, 'What in its full meaning is non-resistance?'
The truest answer is that it is a form of Love,--love in the face of
insults, wrongs, and domineering tyranny, such as are illustrated in
Christ's examples. This article of Christ's New Law comes last but one
in the series of instances in which His transfiguring touch is laid on
the Old Law, and the last of the series is that to which He has been
steadily advancing from the first--namely, the great Commandment of
Love. This precept stands immediately before that, and prepares for it.
It is, as suffused with the light of the sun that is all but risen,
'Resist not evil,' for 'Love beareth all things.'
It is but a shallow stream that is worried into foam and made angry and
noisy by the stones in its bed; a deep river flows smooth and silent
above them. Nothing will enable us to meet 'evil' with a patient
yielding love which does not bring the faintest tinge of anger even into
the cheek reddened by a rude hand, but the 'love of God shed abroad in
the heart,' and when that love fills a man, 'out of him will flow a
river of living water,' which will bury evil below its clear, gentle
abundance, and, perchance, wash it of its foulness. The 'quality of'
this non-resistance 'is twice blessed,' 'it blesseth him that gives and
him that takes.' For the disciple who submits in love, there is the gain
of freedom from the perturbations of passion, and of steadfast abiding
in the peace of a great charity, the deliverance from the temptation of
descending to the level of the wrong-doer, and of losing hold of God and
all high visions. The tempest-ruffled sea mirrors no stars by night, nor
is blued by day. If we are to have real communion with God, we must not
flush with indignation at evil, nor pant with desire to shoot the arrow
back to him that aimed it at us. And in regard to the evil-doer, the
most effectual resistance is, in many cases, not to resist. There is
something hid away somewhere in most men's hearts which makes them
ashamed of smiting the offered left cheek, and then ashamed of having
smitten the right one. 'It is a shame to hit him, since he does not
defend himself,' comes into many a ruffian's mind. The safest way to
travel in savage countries is to show oneself quite unarmed. He that
meets evil with evil is 'overcome of evil'; he that meets it with
patient love is likely in most cases to 'overcome evil with good.' And
even if he fails, he has, at all events, used the only weapon that has
any chance of beating down the evil, and it is better to be defeated
when fighting hate with love than to be victorious when fighting it with
itself, or demanding an eye for an eye.
But, if we take the right view of this precept, its limitations are in
itself. Since it is love confronting, and seeking to transform evil into
its own likeness, it may sometimes be obliged by its own self not to
yield. If turning the other cheek would but make the assaulter more
angry, or if yielding the cloak would but make the legal robber more
greedy, or if going the second mile would but make the press-gang more
severe and exacting, resistance becomes a form of love and a duty for
the sake of the wrong-doer. It may also become a duty for the sake of
others, who are also objects of love, such as helpless persons who
otherwise would be exposed to evil, or society as a whole. But while
clearly that limit is prescribed by the very nature of the precept, the
resistance which it permits must have love to the culprit or to others
as its motive, and not be tainted by the least suspicion of passion or
vengeance. Would that professing Christians would try more to purge
their own hearts, and bring this solemn precept into their daily lives,
instead of discussing whether there are cases in which it does not
apply! There are great tracts in the lives of all of us to which it
should apply and is not applied; and we had better seek to bring these
under its dominion first, and then it will be time enough to debate as
to whether any circumstances are outside its dominion or not.