From Steven Chalke and Alan Mann, “The Lost Message of Jesus”, from chapter 7 “A new agenda”, pg. 130, under “Practical Non-violence”:

———-

“Whatever he was, Jesus was never passive. Even the briefest reading of the Gospels quickly confirms this. And in line with everything else he stood for, his teaching about loving enemies was not a command for his followers to act like apathetic doormats. Rather he counselled active, creative and strong responses to aggression, but without resorting to violence. He clearly viewed violence as not only in opposition to God’s character, but ultimately impractical and impotent for solving dispute.

“As part of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus chose to address the issue of how to deal with injustice by presenting three vivid pictures. “When someone slaps you on the right cheek,” he began, “turn and let that person slap you on the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39). This piece of advice, if we are honest, seems absolutely ridiculous. Why should we let someone openly abuse us in this way without fighting back? However, Jesus’ words would have sounded very different to the oppressed and downtrodden audience whom he first addressed. Whether they were for or against him, none could have failed to appreciate just how radical, active and downright confrontational this teaching was.

“In Jesus’ illustration, the initial blow suffered by the victim would have been backhanded, designed not so much to injure as offer insult, to humiliate and degrade. This kind of blow was only administered to “inferiors”, so a master would backhand his slaves, husbands their wives, and Romans, Jews. But by teaching his lowly hearers to turn the other cheek, Jesus wasn’t suggesting they take this insult lying down. In fact, the reverse is true. By following Jesus’ advice, a servant would make it impossible for his master to hit him again with the back of the hand. The left cheek may now have offered a perfect target to strike another blow, but strong cultural taboos meant that the person hitting could not use his left hand, which was kept for “unclean” tasks. In practice this meant that aggressors only had one option if they wanted to continue hit. Because they could only use their right hands, they would have to slap or punch their victims – but only equals fought in this way.

“Thus turning the other cheek wasn’t passive; it was proactive. The “inferior” was saying “I’m a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am your equal. If you want to hit me again, you will have to acknowledge that.” Jesus isn’t teaching “just take it”, but exactly the reverse: “Stand up for yourself, take control, but don’t answer your oppressor on their terms.”

“Such defiance was obviously no way to avoid trouble. Meek acquiescence was what every master was looking for and impertinent behaviour of this nature may well call down a sever flogging! But still the point would have been made. Once again Gandhi, commenting on Jesus’ revolutionary teaching, claimed, “The first principle of non-violent action is that of non co-operation with everything humiliating.” Jesus’ way was neither cowardly submission nor violent reprisal. *It was non-violence, but definitely not non-resistance.* it involved bold, energetic and even costly confrontation.” [Chalke and Mann, LMJ, pp130-1]