I used to be what I'd call a "radical" pacifist -- not "radical" in the sense that I would do anything radical about it, but in the sense that I thought it was morally wrong for Christians to be involved in the military or warfare. (Of course, I didn't follow my convictions to their logical end and insist we should also do away with the police.)

Much of my understanding was based on how I read these bible verses:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Like so many others in my culture, I heard these verses as saying:

1. We should not stop evil people from doing evil ("Do not resist an evil person"), including by using the military.
2. In the face of violence, we should be absolutely pacifistic, not fight back ("turn the other cheek")

Since then, I have learned -- from pacifists, interestingly enough -- that my understanding of these verses was culturally colored; I did not understand the original meaning of these verses, and thus have added ideas and implications that were not present for the original listeners.

I'd like to review these verses briefly, noting that most of Jesus's audience were poor people, servants, and/or slaves; and that his teachings mention three laws they all would have understood.

Turn the Other Cheek

The first, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also," refers to the legally-allowed method of disciplining a servant or slave.

In that society, there were two types of "striking": There was the back-handed slap across the face, using the back of the right hand to strike right (i.e. opposite) cheek of the person facing you. This blow was a legally sanctioned method of rebuking a slave or servant or other inferior. The other was a closed-fist right-handed punch to the left side of the face; this blow was meant for fighting, not rebuke, and was only acceptable between social equals.

Thus, Jesus was saying that if your evil master/employer wrongly strikes you in a dismissive way, i.e. across the right cheek, turn your left cheek to him, offering him a second blow (mentally, I picture a defiant finger pointing at the cheek) -- but one where he'd be forced to admit you as his equal.

Giving the Shirt Off Your Back

The second, "If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" refers to the legally-allowed method of collecting debt; in this case, as a result of a lawsuit. In our society, nakedness is an embarassment for the one who is naked. In Jewish society, it was felt to shame all who saw the naked one, as a sign that society itself had failed -- someone was forced to go naked!

The "tunic" is an outer garment; the "cloak" then referred to garment underneath, which covered the naked body. If a person owed you a debt, you were allowed to take everything they owned, even their outer garments, except that you had to leave the cloak ("the shirt on their back", in our terms) so that they might not be left naked.

Here Jesus tells the listener to go ahead and give them the inner garment as well. I hear it as a defiant: "Fine, you want that? Take this too!" The one protesting would be left naked, everyone who saw it would be embarassed, and the one who sued would be publicly shamed for having gone so far.

Going the Extra Mile

Roman soldiers were legally allowed to conscript someone from the street to carry their packs. But because Rome didn't want to stir up undue hatred among the governed populations, a soldier was only allowed to force someone to carry their pack for one mile. In fact, they had rather strict rules whereby a soldier would get in serious trouble (we're talking beatings and lashings) for making someone carry his pack for a second mile.

So, once again, Jesus is almost telling his followers to "make trouble" by going beyond what the law demands -- by going the second mile. I envision the soldier, nervous that his commander might spot the situation, begging: "No, really, thank you. Please set the pack down now", and the Christian almost playing with him, saying: "No, really, I insist. I'd be more than glad to carry this into the second mile..."

No Longer "An Eye for an Eye"?

What do all these stories have in common? Each is a story where, contrary to my original understanding (I thought Jesus was also talking "not resisting" evil behavior outside the law!), the "evil person" in each story is always shown as acting fully acting within the law.

The evil master is rebuking his slave in an approved fashion -- and the slave challenges him to a second rebuke which grants equality! The evil ligitant sues you for everything you owe -- and you literally give him the shirt off your back, protesting his excess with your nakedness. The evil soldier forces you to carry his pack for a mile -- and you protest the entire system of forced and uncompensated labor by getting him in trouble with that second mile.

Thus, when Jesus illustrates what he means by "Do not resist the evil one", note that he only only uses examples where the evil is legally allowed, and the law provides no remedy or restraint: these are not cases of murder or theft or rape to which we are to acquiesce. And the ways of resisting he suggests are also perfectly legal: he is not telling his followers to ignore or violate the law, but rather to voluntarily amplify it to its unjust and absurd extreme.

A further illustration of how this section is misunderstood lurks in a common reading of the opening verse:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

Like many, I once heard this verse as saying that instead of one tooth or evey being proper repayment, that none was now the correct number. That this law no longer applied, perhaps.

Further, I was tempted to think Jesus was talking about how society was to be structured (rather than giving advice to individuals): that society should no longer be involved in "resisting evil", repaying victims and punishing evil. We shouldn't, for example, go to war -- instead, as Christians, societies we influence should just let the evil overrun us, and we should die, if necessary, as a testament to goodness, trusting in God to intervene miraculously if necessary.

(This is a common interpretation among the "Peace and Justice" crowd.)

Yet to correctly understand what this phrase means, one has to look at the other "you have heard it saids" in the surrounding chapter, and read it in context:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them... (v17)

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment...

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart....

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress...

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all...

In each of these sayings, Jesus is not repealing the law in question, rather he is in fact strengthening it personally for his followers: Is adultery still wrong? Oh yes, but I'm telling lust is too! Is murder still wrong? Oh yes, still wrong, but I'm telling you hatred is too! ...

Thus, we cannot read this verse differently than these others, as the pacifist does, as saying Jesus is repealing the law that an eye should not be repaid for an eye. To the contrary, Jesus explicitly states this is NOT what he is teaching here: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law..." What Jesus is asking here is actually that, when the situation is unjust, his followers go further than the law demands -- in essence giving two teeth for a lost tooth; going two miles where only one was legally required..

This should be read in the context of Jesus as a person who came to strengthen God's moral laws, not abolish the entire concept of legal restitution (which appeared in Law), nor abolish societal/collective restraints on evil. There is no basis here for radical pacifism; Jesus was simply addressing the fact that no set of laws is good enough to restrain all evil, and giving his followers examples of how to react in that situation without themselves becoming criminals and breaking the law.