Continuing the examination of His commands in relation to those outlined in the Old Testament, Christ proclaimed, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say unto you, Resist not evil. Instead, if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Within the fallen nature of humanity resides a persistent urge for vengeance—the inclination to retaliate against wrongdoers, often to the extent where the offender feels the avenger’s wrath fully, exacting a sense of retribution. In ancient societies, such vengeance was often upheld by tradition as the principal means of safeguarding one's personal dignity. Among the Jews, this practice was so prevalent that Moses needed to create provisions to protect those who accidentally caused harm (Numbers 35:10-12). “And you shall have these cities as a refuge from the avenger of blood, lest the murderer be put to death before he is brought before the congregation for judgment” (Numbers 35:10-12). According to later legislation, these cities were designated as sanctuaries for any murderer to prevent the avenger from pursuing them in a fit of rage (Deuteronomy 19:3, 6).
The same laws placed the onus on the city's elders to apprehend those who committed murder with intent and hand them over to the blood avenger so that they might face due punishment (Deuteronomy 19:12). To limit the potential for excesses in retribution, Moses reiterated in his laws the principle of proportionality—requiring that retribution match the harm done: “Give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23-25). The principle of reciprocity was clear: “Whosoever does injury to his neighbor, as he has done shall it be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Leviticus 24:19-20). “Let not your eye spare him: soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Whatever harm a man does to his neighbor, it shall be repaid to him” (Deuteronomy 19:21). These Mosaic laws facilitated a balance of justice in terms of societal regulations, attempting to mitigate excessive cruelty and arbitrariness. Though they did not endorse personal vengeance, nor did they command victims or their kin to seek retribution unlawfully. Aware of the hardness of the Jewish heart, Moses urged that if true love for one’s neighbor had not yet taken root, and they could not withhold revenge, they should at least seek to be just in their retribution, refraining from indulging in revengefulness.
Consequently, the Old Testament laws made a concession to the deeply ingrained culture of tribal vengeance, primarily aiming to limit its repercussions. Adherents of these laws believed themselves just. Although the command to love one’s neighbor was also given, it was largely interpreted narrowly by the Jews to apply only to fellow Israelites, focusing on the literal meaning found in, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). While neglecting the directive to refrain from vengeance against fellow Jews, the obstinate Jews viewed every non-Jew as their adversary, believing that only their own people were to be loved, thus concluding erroneously that all outsiders were to be despised, despite there being no explicit law mandating hatred towards enemies.
Christ redefined this understanding by teaching love that transcends boundaries, urging us to love even those who despise us. He stated, “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). Moreover, He emphasized the qualities necessary to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, such as humility, mercy, and purity of heart, which stand in stark contrast to the inclination for vengeance and the infliction of harm upon others. This radical shift demanded His followers develop a righteousness that surpassed traditional measures, as evidenced by His injunction, “But I say unto you, Resist not evil. If anyone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also”—a call to wholly renounce any thoughts of revenge and to refrain from doing harm to those we are called to love.
Examples of Christ’s embodiment of this command are found in His own actions. There are misconceptions arising from interpreting this commandment in isolation from Christ’s overall teachings and His supreme command of love. A brief look into the Gospels illustrates that Christ’s actions aligned with His teachings. For instance, when a hostile crowd sought to stone Him, He did not submit to violence, but instead redirected their fury with reason, asking, “I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of them do you want to stone Me?” (John 10:31-32). His composed inquiry struck a chord within their hardened hearts, resulting in their dropping stones in retreat.
Thus, the threats He faced were met with a form of resistance, not through evil deeds, but through goodness and reason. If Christ, who taught us to resist evil, acted in this manner, it becomes evident that He did not intend for this commandment to be interpreted wholly literally. A similar instance occurred during His trial when a guard struck Him. Rather than turning the other cheek, Christ responded, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” (John 18:22-23). Here we see that He did not turn to offer up the other cheek to an unjust blow, but rather sought the truth in a meek way. He was willing to endure suffering for His mission but stood firm against wrongdoing when necessary. Such examples reveal that Christ did not require a literal interpretation of His command not to resist evil; thus, it is clear that He expected His followers to comprehend this directive within the broader framework of His teaching.
The apostles understood the command likewise. Peter articulated, “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men... Not returning evil for evil, nor reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing” (1 Peter 2:15; 1 Peter 3:9, 13). Similarly, Paul admonished, “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17, 19, 21). Hence, the understanding is clear: Jesus Christ did not call for passive acceptance of evil but rather called for active resistance against it through good.
Furthermore, Christ expanded on this teaching with practical examples of how to respond to evil: “If anyone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matthew 5:39-41). However, these scenarios should not replace the greater commandment of love, which encapsulates all misunderstandings that may arise from the individual commandments. By providing these examples, Christ leaves His followers the discernment to figure out how best to respond to specific situations based on His essential command to love.
Augustine said, “Love and do what you will.” The underlying principle remains that a brother is called to respond with goodness rather than harm; love informs how one acts in fulfilling this duty, suggesting a higher calling beyond mere avoidance of revenge. Thus, the cycle of retribution, which was only allowed in the Old Testament due to the Jews' hardness of heart, is unconditionally prohibited by Christ. Instead, He teaches that although one may act against evil, it must be done through goodness and never through evil acts. This principle applies to individuals facing wrongdoing, as well as to larger groups and nations confronting evil.
In addressing those in direct conflict with evil, examples of permissible opposition arise. While some argue against active resistance, fearing that the meek and gentle will become easy victims, Christ provides evidence through His life that demonstrates the strength found in meekness. He disarmed His aggressors not with violence, but through His gentle disposition, even turning the ire of those who sought to harm Him into moments of reflection. Each of us may have experienced instances where responding with humility has disarmed an opponent. Mutual hostility only spirals into more conflict and further evils, resulting in a perpetual cycle of vengeance, disenchantment, and enmity—characteristics that belong to the realm of darkness.
Christ's purpose was to establish the Kingdom of God, a realm defined by goodness and love, thereby vanquishing the power of darkness. He beckons us to resist evil not with its own tools but through the transformative power of humility and love. Even if such qualities do not yield immediate results, the resolve to endure further injustice—like turning the other cheek—has the potential to subdue even the hardest hearts. As Peter asks, “And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?” (1 Peter 3:13). Recognizing the disposition of a gentle spirit often garners protective allies rather than foes.
When observing acts of aggression against another in our presence, the question arises: should we not intervene, defend the afflicted, or stand idly by while evil prevails? Followers of Tolstoy posit that forceful resistance to evil is unwarranted; thus, if persuasion fails, they believe one must passively allow wrongdoing to unfold. However, such a stance neglects the fact that both the aggressor and the victim fall under the same command to love—requiring active opposition to evil on behalf of both parties. Can one truly love an aggressor by permitting them to act on their malevolent intentions? To truly love the victim, one must also seek to shield them from harm. Thus, resisting evil becomes a moral imperative derived from the love commanded by Christ.
However, where should one draw the line? Would it be appropriate to risk one’s own life to protect another? Christ guides us in this matter by affirming, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13). This teaches that true love may call for self-sacrifice not only in defense of friends but extends to all neighbors. To act against evil, one should not shy away from suffering and must be prepared to lay down one’s life if the occasion arises. Those who advocate for non-resistance often argue against using force in situations where evil threatens the innocent. Yet, inaction in the face of such evils leads to greater suffering.
This brings us to the matter of societal or national conflicts. Though Christ did not address the governance of states directly, His teachings still apply when we act collectively. If love drives our individual choices, that same love must guide nations in the fight against evil. Warfare designed to inflict harm and gain dominion is utterly contrary to the command of love. Just as a thief cannot justify their actions under the guise of seeking personal gain, neither can nations act in ways that contravene the principle of love.
But if a nation is attacked, does it stand by in indifference? The followers of Tolstoy argue that any form of warfare embodies violence, thus categorically preventing any resistance. They overlook the fact that nations are composed of vulnerable individuals—elders, women, and children who need protection. A fully pacifist stance leaves communities exposed to aggression. If a nation simply offers itself and its citizens without resistance to its aggressors, are they not failing the commandment to protect their most vulnerable?
THEOSIS