What of revenge, then? Matthew 5:38-42

Father,
We cry out for vindication. Help us to Forget our kneejeark reations that have been so engrained and enculturated in us. Help us to be radical in our choices in how we relate with others, whether they are kind to us or not. Let our choices wake people up because they are so radical and different from the norm. From allowing others to abuse us and doing good to them in spite of it, to shaming them by giving them all you have instead of whatever they require. Help us to go the extra mile. Help us to be so good that only the most demonized people could ever take issue with us. Amen.

Mtthew 5:38-42 (TPT)
“Your ancestors have also been taught, ‘Take an eye in exchange for an eye and a tooth in exchange for a tooth.’ However, I say to you, don’t repay an evil act with another evil act. But whoever insults you by slapping you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. If someone is determined to sue you for your coat, give him the shirt off your back as a gift in return. And should people in authority take advantage of you, do more than what they demand. Learn to generously share what you have with those who ask for help, and don’t close your heart to the one who comes to borrow from you.”

Tough passage. This is dying to self. Now, this has been tought in abusive ways in the past, to support leaders who are just plain evil, and have been used to justify continuing to be abused indefinitely. That is not what Jesus is saying here. Jesus doesn’t want his followers to be out for blood or vengeance for slights/abuses, no matter whether real or imagined. We are to trust that Our Father has our back, and not be concerned about revenge or self-vindication. If we truly trust that God will and does take care of things for us, we neither have to defend ourselves nor strike back when we are injured in some way. It is when we do not understand how loved we are by Our Father that we tend to take things into our own hands through revenge. There was a message I heard on this passage a few years back that has stuck with me, where the pastor explained what each of these situations really meant in the context of the first century hearers.

When you allow someone who backhands you to strike you again, they will hit you with an open palm, which changes the dynamic of the encounter, as, even today, aback hand is disrespectful and implies that the one smacking the other person is above or better than the other in some way. However, it is very difficult to back hand someone twice in a row, so the second strike would be with an open palm, inferring equality. Not saying that it hurts less, but it changes the dynamic, nonetheless.

Embarrass the one who wants to sue you for your over clothes by givng them your underthings as well, leaving you naked, and them ashamed of their greed. Think about this for a second… in the first century, and up until probably the 20th century, no one had underwear. They had shirts and cloaks, but no trousers or pants. So if one gave another both their cloak and their shirt, they would be naked.

The text, as oririnally written had to do with the reality of being insta-drafted by a Roman soldier to carry their pack for 1 mile. Those packs were heavy, sometimes around 100 pounds. The truth was that there was a regulation which stated that they could only force a civilian to carry their pack for 1 mile at a time. If they tried to force a greater distance, their life would be forfeit. So, volunteering to carry their pack for 2 miles would cost the soldier their life for the convenience… even a step more than 1 mile would cost the soldier their life. Dr Simmons and his team generalize this more, here, but the idea is similar. They could pressgang you, but only to a certain point, not just capture you as a permanent slave or some such thing, only 1 mile, no more.