A Different Response

 

...do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.  If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.  Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. (Mat 5:39-41)

 

There are quite a few interpretations of these instructions. One points out that the directive following these to love one’s enemies is the crux of Jesus teaching on retaliation. Another suggest the teaching is in opposition to the Pharisees who believed the law condoned retaliation. Yet another takes the point of view that the teaching of Jesus here involves a loving attitude. It seems to me that all of the various thoughts on Jesus’ teaching have merit, and maybe all must be taken into consideration to give the full intent of the instruction.

 

For the time in which we find ourselves, as well as the rest of the world – in a pandemic; I would suggest another option of interpretation. Consider the quote by Victor Frankl; “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Jesus instructed his audience what actions were appropriate in circumstances in which they were being ordered to do something. A slap represented disdain and insult. Taking one’s shirt as settlement of a suit was hardship. Being forced by a Roman to carry something was an obligation. The recipient of any of these actions put a person in an undesirable situation. A slap was designed to intimidate and debase. Demanding a person’s shirt was demeaning and humiliating. Ordered to carry some load made a person feel inferior and victimized.

 

In each of these situations the person on the receiving end is rendered powerless. Looking at the situations through the window of Frankl’s statement, the words of Jesus take on special meaning. In the space between stimulus and response there is choice. The choice of a response will either intensify negative feeling, or, neutralize them. Jesus taught his followers to defuse the negative affect of powerlessness. In the act of volunteering a person reclaims power over the situation. Offering the other cheek, or one’s coat, or going a second mile, changes the situation from obligation to personal choice. By doing what Jesus taught the powerless become powerful. The basic reactions of fight or flight impact responses. The person who falls in the category of flight will be prone to accept powerlessness as inevitable. Those in the fight category are going to have difficulty restraining their impulses. Both flight and fight responses are negative, compared to what Jesus taught. His way is best, not only because it demonstrates his nature, but because it preserves one’s dignity and power. Following the teaching of Jesus taps into the spiritual nature, and as Frankl wrote, “In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”