Getting Even
based on Matthew 5:38-48
by Dr. David Rogne

A truck driver stopped off at a roadside restaurant for a quick meal. He was seated at a table eating his meal when four tough-looking motorcyclists roared up, came into the restaurant, looked around, walked over to his table and said, "We want this table -take off!" The trucker said "... but I'm not finished with my meal." One of the cyclists picked up the driver's water glass, poured it over his entree and said, "Now you are — Go!" The driver picked up his cap and left. The four cyclists laughed it up for a few minutes and the one who had poured the water said "He wasn't much of a man, was he?" The waitress, who was two tables away and had a clear view of the parking lot, overheard him and said, "He's not much of a driver either. He just ran over four motorcycles."

The outcome of that story is so satisfying. It is difficult to imagine that there could be anything wrong with it. We like it when villains get what is coming to them. Our concept of justice is based on this notion. In fact, it is a concept of justice that goes back to a time long before Christ.

Some four thousand years ago a Sumerian King by the name of Hammurabi laid down a law of strict retaliation, which called for punishment to be identical with the offense. Moses, some centuries later, made that law a part of the Jewish system of justice. It stated that in matters of personal injury the punishment was to be very specific: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe. The concept sounds harsh, but in time a money value was placed on each injury, taking into consideration the seriousness of the injury, the pain involved, the cost of medical attention, the loss of time, and the indignity suffered. Eventually, this law of retaliation became the basis for Hebrew, Greek and Roman law, and is still foundational to our current notions of personal responsibility.

Yet, it is these very assumptions about the rightness of retribution that Jesus seems to be challenging in the scripture for today. I say "seems," because I do not think Jesus is saying that retribution is bad. When I was a youngster my favorite comic strip was the Katzenjammer Kids. The two principal characters were two boys you could love named Hans and Fritz. They had a cousin by the name of Rollo, who was the kind of kid you could hate. He was a scheming dandy, always mean, and always devising ways to get Hans and Fritz in trouble. He had a sister by the name of Nina, who was always standing by, sucking on a lollipop, and drawing a moral from the proceedings. What made the comic strip so satisfying was that Rollo was forever falling into his own traps, suffering the consequences of his own devious plans. His sister, Nina, was always saying, "He brought it on himself."

That is retribution, not revenge. And in this passage Jesus is not speaking against, or saying that one shouldn't, pay for one's crimes, or that people shouldn't reap what they sow. Rather, it is revenge that Jesus is cautioning us about: the willingness to let ourselves be judge, jury and punisher in matters of personal injury.

What I understand Jesus to be saying here is, "Do not take revenge on someone who does you wrong." Admittedly, this goes against our most basic instincts. Certainly, one of the reasons why James Bond movies are so popular is that James Bond is not only cool and in control, but always able to pay back the villain with the same kind of bizarre death the villain intended to use on Bond. We like to think that we are for law and order, but it would be emotionally disappointing if James Bond simply subdued the villain and turned him over to the courts for trial. Revenge feels more satisfying than justice, especially if the good person (with whom we like to identify ourselves) comes out all right.

A problem with revenge is that there is no guarantee that the injured person is going to come through the ordeal all right. In the movies the hero may often be successful, but in real life the person who was injured in the first place is just as likely to get clobbered a second time. But even more dangerous than the possible miscarriage of revenge, is the effect of the desire for revenge on those who harbor it. In the book, Moby Dick, Captain Ahab lost a leg as a result of his encounter with the legendary white whale, Moby Dick. Revenge for his lost leg consumed Captain Ahab and took away his ability to act rationally. In his final encounter with the whale, Ahab not only lost his own life, and his ship, but the lives of most of his crew as well. Revenge is not sweet; it is a poison which perpetuates strife and conflict in an endless cycle, destroying the character and sensibilities of the person who nourishes it. It is with good reason that Jesus urges his disciples to avoid seeking revenge.

In the remainder of the passage Jesus gives a number of illustrations of how retaliation is to be avoided. For example, he says that if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek also. Some people interpret this verse to mean that Christians should be pacifists and not be involved in the defense of anything. My impression is that in this verse and the ones which follow, Jesus is not setting down rules, but illustrating how non-retaliation works. If we try to make a law out of an illustration and attempt to apply it uncritically to every situation, we shall not only miss the point, but encourage violence, robbery and anarchy.

Moreover, I think Jesus is speaking here of personal relationships in which our individual response is likely to be noticed by another individual and perhaps have some impact on his or her conduct. I do not think his words are to be applied in the impersonal context of society's response to a criminal or a country's response to a foreign aggressor. When traveling in Germany I have had the opportunity to visit some of the Nazi concentration camps in which eleven million human beings were tortured, gassed and incinerated during World War II. One does not leave such places the same person. In one of those camps I saw photographs of American soldiers liberating the camps. Written on the wall was the thanks of the survivors

that America and other free nations finally put a stop to what was going on. It is inconceivable to me that in the face of such unmitigated evil, anyone could imagine Jesus urging non-resistance. That is why I think that Jesus' words apply to personal relationships, not to relationships among nations.

It should further be pointed out that this illustration of slapping is hardly an assault with intent to commit murder, or anything else jeopardizing life and limb. It is interesting to note that Jesus refers to a slap on the right cheek. For a right-handed person to do this, he would have to strike with the back of his hand, which, in the Jewish culture, and even in our own, would be twice as insulting as being slapped with the palm of the hand, for it leaves the flat of the hand extended for a repeat performance on the left cheek. The issue, therefore, is not self-defense, but response to an insult.

A slap in the face may rarely happen to us, but insults, great and small, do come to us, and we are being taught here not to retaliate. You and I know of persons who have felt insulted because their name was omitted from a list of "thank yous." We know people who are resentful and refuse to participate any further in a project because they were not invited to take a bow when recognition was being given. Or there are those who bide their time and wait for years until they come into a position of power, so that they may get back at others who they feel hurt them. Their lives cannot help but become warped and unhappy by such festering resentment. Is the nourishing of the thirst for retaliation really worth the misery which such people endure? The assessment of Jesus is that it is not, and he advises that it is better to disregard the first insult, than to be eaten up from within by resentment.

Jesus further illustrates his point about avoiding retaliation by saying: "If a person takes you to court to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well." In Jesus' day the shirt spoken of was a long undergarment, and even the poorest Jew could be expected to have a spare. The coat, however, was a heavy outer garment worn as a robe by day, and used as a blanket by night. Jewish law said that a person's shirt could be taken as security, but not a person's coat, for it was his only protection at night, and it would be inhuman to take that from him.

What Jesus is suggesting, then, is that his followers be prepared to go beyond what the law requires when dealing with a plaintiff. Jesus is urging his followers to prize human relationships more than legal limits; to do what is right, even if the law does not require it. For example, in our own culture we have bankruptcy laws to shelter a person while he gets on his feet again. To the degree that they help someone who is genuinely in trouble they are good. But it is not uncommon for irresponsible people to live foolishly, and then to declare bankruptcy, leaving their creditors unpaid and unable to get satisfaction. Such people will often blame their creditors for pushing them into bankruptcy, and say that now that they have legal protection, they are within their rights not to pay what was owed.

I am acquainted with a young man whose father died while the young man was a college freshman. The father had substantial debts, and a lot of people were going to lose a lot of money. The young man could have said, "That's their problem. Those are the breaks of doing business." Instead, he left college, went to work, and settled his father's debts. Jesus' illustration makes it quite clear that whatever our legal protection may be, there are still moral obligations to be dealt with, and one who follows Jesus is being asked to fulfill personal responsibility rather than to stand on personal privilege.

Jesus again illustrates his point about avoiding retaliation by saying, "If someone compels you to carry his pack one mile, carry it another mile." It must be remembered that Palestine was an occupied country. The word translated "compel" comes out of that set of circumstances. Centuries before Christ, the Persians had set up an amazing postal system. Each road was divided into stages composed of a day's journey. At each stage food, water, fodder and horses were provided for the messenger. If anything were lacking, any private person could be impressed, "compelled," to provide food, lodging, horses, assistance, or even be required to carry the message himself for a stage Eventually that word "compel" came to signify any kind of forced impressment into the service of an occupying power. Always, the threat of compulsion hung over the occupied citizenry. At any moment a Jew might be compelled to serve the Romans, sometimes in the most menial ways. This is what happened to Simon of Cyrene when he was "compelled" to bear the cross of Jesus.

In the face of such circumstances, Jesus nevertheless told his disciples, "If someone compels you to be a porter, or a guide for one mile, don't go with bitter and obvious resentment, go two miles with cheerfulness and good grace." The first mile is duty; the second mile is opportunity. Some go through life doing only what they are compelled to do, and to them life is one hard demand, resentfully met, after another. When I was in school I used to go door to door offering a service which was of interest only to home owners. After a while I was able to predict with about a 95% degree of accuracy whether the person living in the house was the homeowner or not. The home owners generally took care of their property; renters on the other hand, would often park their cars on the front lawn, let the yard go to rack and ruin, and never replace broken windows. They felt they had fulfilled their obligation by paying the rent; no more could be required of them. As a consequence, they lived in run-down surroundings.

Others, who go beyond what is required, may find that they have improved life for themselves and others. I read about a husband and wife who lived in the same house for thirty years. When they moved into the house early in their marriage they were renters. The property was out in the country, but quite bare of trees. The woman asked the landlord if they could plant trees. He said that they could, but he didn't want to be involved in it. She pointed out to her husband that they could dig up some saplings from a near-by forested area and plant them around the property, but he was reluctant to put forth the effort. Eventually, she did get him to do it. The trees grew, and they had shade. Twenty-five years later they bought the house. Not only was it well shaded, but they had

enjoyed the shade for many years before the house was theirs. According to Jesus, the unwilling worker, the ungracious helper, the resentful servant is offering the required minimum, but has not begun to understand life as God planned it.
Jesus concludes with one more illustration of non-retaliation, which comes from the area of requests for help. "When someone asks you for something, give it," he says. "When someone wants to borrow something, lend it to him." Certainly this is an illustration urging generosity, but we are quick to note that, if it were applied uncritically, it would encourage spongers, promote idleness and reduce personal industry. The principle is that we should be generous, but not generous to a fault. Of course, that is not likely to be a problem for most of us. We know how to protect ourselves, how to say "no". For that reason, perhaps, we are precisely the persons who need to hear this lesson in generosity. We need to discover the middle ground between self-protection and sacrifice.

The relationship of this illustration to the topic of retaliation is, at first, difficult to see Perhaps what is implied here is that we are to give or to lend even to those who have not been generous with us, and in that way indicate our own willingness to be on good terms with the borrower who is now himself in need. James Moore tells about two farmers who lived side by side. One day the fence between the two farms was pushed down, and the livestock of one farmer trampled the garden of the other farmer. The farmer whose garden was damaged was so irate that he rounded up the animals and refused to return them until their owner paid in full for the damages. The one whose livestock had caused the problem was genuinely sorry. He apologized, paid the damages, repaired the fence and took his cows home.

A few days later, ironically, the opposite thing happened! The other man's livestock pushed down the fence and got into the other garden. The first farmer now had a chance to retaliate, but he handled the situation differently. He rounded up the cows and
returned them to their owner. The owner, red-faced and embarrassed, reached for his checkbook: "I suppose you have the damages figured, so let me pay you and get it over with. How much do I owe you?" "Not a thing," said the first man. "We're neighbors, and I'd rather lose the garden than your friendship." Later that night there was a knock at the first man's door. There stood the neighbor with the money he had received for damages a few days before. Handing over the money he said, "Please, take the money back. I need to change my way of looking at things, and maybe this will get me started." The first man had learned how to give and not to withhold in spite of the actions of his neighbor. He showed his neighbor a better way.

Is the teaching of Jesus that the desire to retaliate must give way to non-resentment and non-retaliation, too hard for us? To be sure, it goes against human nature, but Jesus makes it clear that he is not asking his disciples to do what other people are already willing to do. We need goals that keep us morally stretched. Though the ideal to which we are called may be beyond our grasp, that does not mean that our goal is to be abandoned, for we are called to be children of God, and it is better for us to fall short of that goal, having tried, than to succeed at being something less than God intends us to be.