In discussing the issues of violence and non-violence, pacifism and non-pacifism, something comes up at times that I think needs to be re-examined. I’ve heard it said that Jesus’ comments about non-resistance to evildoers only applied to religious persecution.
In mulling this over and weighing it out, a thought kept coming to mind: what about the second mile? You know the teaching:
If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
It’s in the context of Jesus’ reframing the concept of vengeance (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”), two phrases after the command to turn the other cheek. And it’s definitely not about religious persecution. There’s no evidence that the concept of Roman soldiers forcing non-Romans to carry their gear was a religious oppression. It was more akin to the quartering that the British Empire practiced prior to the American Revolution.
Jesus’ answer is that such oppression is not to be resisted.
Now I know that there are other ways of teaching that the Sermon of the Mount doesn’t apply to us. We’ve looked at those in a series on this blog. If you’d like to restate those views, fine. I don’t expect to spend a lot of time replying to such comments.
For those that think that Matthew recorded Jesus’ teachings for the edification of Jesus’ church, I’d like to discuss this point: doesn’t the teaching about the second mile move the conversation away from the subject of religious persecution?
Tim,
That depends. i haven’t studied the history on this issue as much as i’d like. Were the soldiers only allowed to press *Jews* into this service but not other peoples? Or was it only non-citizens?
There’s also the issue of whether religious persecution must exist at the level of the intent of the persecutor, or if there can be systemic religious persecution the execution of which does not entail particular motives on the part of anyone carrying it out.
It seems to me these 2 matters open up wiggle room for someone to maintain that even the second mile issue was religious persecution. (Of course, what i’d like to ask is, at what point are we allowed to stop seeing or behaving as though we are ‘publicly’ a Christian? We only have to ‘turn on’ our religious behavior when people are explicitly aiming to persecute us? That can’t be right.)
–guy
“Oppression is not to be resisted.” Does this extend to allowing your family to be raped and murdered? If they kill one child, offer them another? Does Matt 12:29 have anything to say on the subject. Must I allow my neighbors to be assaulted. Difficult for me to see how standing by while my neighbor is raped and murdered shows Jesus’ love. But then, perhaps I am wrong. Wouldn’t be my first time to be absolutely wrong about something. However, it seldom is as simple as it first seems.
Guy, I’ll try and research that a bit. From what I can tell, this sort of thing could be pressed on anyone (like Simon of Cyrene; he wasn’t a Jew, was he?). Maybe somebody else can shed some light.
Tim,
i was a little leery of the “oppression is not to be resisted” statement as well. i tend to think that Jesus was actually teaching a particular way of resisting the oppression that is unlike what may seem instinctive. But i thought you should have a chance to unpack that statement first.
–guy
Dave,
I’m not sure. It’s funny how often we jump to the “rape and murder” scenario. Where I am right now is that Jesus’ teachings do not prohibit one from defending another person.
If we want to start extrapolating that out (as I’ve often heard) to include military action, etc., then I think we’ve effectively rendered Jesus’ words meaningless.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Guy,
I originally had the words “with violence” at the end of that sentence.
I will note that “oppression” usually carries a connotation of authority or power. You don’t usually talk about a robber oppressing his victims. Oppression deals with someone in an official capacity using that capacity against others. (Right? Or am I creating my own definitions again?)
Tim
Tim,
“I will note that “oppression” usually carries a connotation of authority or power. You don’t usually talk about a robber oppressing his victims. Oppression deals with someone in an official capacity using that capacity against others. (Right? Or am I creating my own definitions again?)”
Your distinction here seems intuitive to me. Oppression seems to me at least more systematic or collective in connotation than person-to-person moral infractions.
–guy