
Arrived this past saturday in Glasgow to hear Rob Bell around 3:30, about a half-hour after the car with two passengers ran into Glasgow airport in an apparent act of terrorism. Obviously there were cops everywhere, all the train stations and Edinburgh airport closed down. Funny, because I remember thinking when we arrived here this past August that Scotland would probably be the last place there would be an issue.....how naive.
Anyways, Rob shared something I honestly hadn't heard before. It had to do with Matthew 5:39...."But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
I've always read that as a passive act, in fact every example between versus 38-42 seemed to be acts of pacification. That couldn't be further from the truth.
According to Jewish tradition, the right hand was considered clean, as the left was unclean. Living in a very socially stratified culture, every action one took coincided to their social status....even to the extent of how you struck someone who either offended or was insubordinate.
You always struck someone with your clean hand, and striking someone's left side with a fist indicated that though one may have offended the aggressor, they were still considered equals. Striking someone on the right cheek, if you can picture it mentally is almost impossible with your clean hand and making a fist. Thus, you slapped a lesser person on the right cheek. That is why certain versions of the passage interpret it as "slapping" as opposed to "striking".
By turning the other cheek, you weren't sitting back and letting them beat the tar out of you. No, this was a highly subversive act, thus requiring the aggressor to strike the left cheek and indicating they were equals in the eyes of the onlookers, something you dare not do. Could you be more imaginative or creative?
It wasn't passive, nor was it aggressive. It was considered the "third way". I've read about the third way before, but just not quite like this.
Two guiding principles of the third way:
-do not co-operate with anything that was dehumanizing.
-allow for any possibility that the aggressor could change their mind
He used a great modern day example: a woman from his church had said she was in a destructie marriage. One of the things the husband would do was take her bible and tear it up in front of her. What's the "third way" in that situation? Go after him, walk away? Perhaps the third way was to quickly grab your camera phone or a camera and tell him you wanted to get the act on camera so she could show their kids what Daddy did when they were younger. Pretty imaginative, I've got to admit.
I'm continually amazed at some of the seemingly simplest passages in scripture being so easily misunderstood.