The Power of Non-Violence

Christological Non-Violence

The passage in Matthew 5:38-48, a part of the Sermon on the Mount or Beatitudes, contains Jesus’ teachings on non-retaliation, love of enemies, and turning the other cheek. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus tells his disciples to put away their swords, demonstrating a rejection of violence. In Luke 6:27-29, Jesus instructs his followers to love their enemies, do good to those who hate them, and pray for those who spitefully use them. Paul echoes a similar view in Romans 12:17-21 by encouraging believers to live peaceably with others, to overcome evil with good, and to not take revenge.

John Nolland, regarding Luke 6:27 in the Word Biblical Commentary states: “The love commanded by Jesus is no sentiment but rather the active pursuance of the enemies’ good, and that not grudgingly or only in an exterior manner but from the heart.”^[1]

He later states, “Jesus calls for an aggressive pitting of good against evil. This is a thoroughly evangelistic strategy which denies the social reality of two mutually exclusive groups (the Christians and those who persecute them); it takes up and radicalizes the highest demands group solidarity might impose and asks for these to be practiced in relation to the enemy.”^[2]

Jesus’ teachings on non-violence offer a profound challenge to the prevailing culture of violence in the modern world and what we see reflected in parts of the Old Testament. What is the practicality of such commands, and how can these teachings provide a powerful moral compass and a vision for a more just and peaceful society?

The Days After Jesus

For the first few centuries after Jesus, pacifism was a core value within the faith. Philip Daileader, a history professor, highlights how Christianity lost its pacifist tradition as it gained power and earthly authority.

For centuries, Christianity, with its roots in pacifism, viewed warfare with strong opposition. However, after the Emperor Constantine’s conversion, Christians began to hold positions of authority within the Roman Empire, a society with a strong military tradition. As Christians gained power, theologians gradually began to reconsider Christianity’s long-standing and firm rejection of all forms of violence.

Saint Augustine played a key role in this matter. While acknowledging the inherent evil of war, he introduced the concept of “just war”. He argued that certain wars could be justified if they were declared by legitimate authorities, pursued a just cause, were the only viable means to achieve that cause, and were free from ulterior motives.

Crucially, Augustine never equated “just war” with “holy war”. However, by accepting that some wars could be morally justifiable, he paved the way for the later emergence of the concept of “holy war”. This shift in thinking, however, took over four centuries to fully develop, highlighting the enduring influence of Christianity’s pacifist origins.[3]

While the concept of a “just war” might seem to align with Christian principles of justice, it diverges significantly from Jesus’ teachings of love and non-violence. Jesus emphasized forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and loving one’s enemies. He actively rejected the use of force and worldly power, instead prioritizing compassion and reconciliation.

Rejection of Power

Mark 10:45 – ⁴⁵ For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (NRSV)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer stated in his sermon on 2 Corinthians 12:9:

Christianity stands or falls by its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power, and by its apologia for the weak.—I feel that Christianity is doing too little in making these points rather than doing too much. Christianity has adjusted itself much too easily to the worship of power. It should give much more offence, more shock to the world, than it is doing. Christianity should take a much more definite stand for the weak than for the potential moral right of the strong.[4]

Michael Gonzalez wrote an article on Greg Boyd’s blog, ReKnew, stating,

Fear of death corrodes our ability to imagine a faithful response beyond full participation in the cycle of violence . . . Jesus entered our world of violence and lived into a story that contradicted the lie that death is in charge. Jesus saw reality the way God saw it; he could see something deeper than our collective human experience and conviction about death. He proclaimed this message and invited us to live into it. . . . We must resist the story death proclaims by grieving its widespread acceptance and condemning it as vanity. We resist death by taking up arms of communal prayer, self sacrifice, lament, and gospel hope, but never with weapons of worldly means.[5]

Real World Impact

Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan argues that nonviolent resistance movements are more successful than violent campaigns in achieving political goals. The book uses historical data to demonstrate that nonviolent resistance movements have a higher success rate than violent ones, even against repressive regimes. The authors argue that nonviolent resistance is more effective because it can mobilize broader public support, induce defections within the government, and generate international pressure. Additionally, nonviolent resistance is less likely to lead to further violence and instability in the long term.

The same authors discussed in a published journal, after analyzing over 300 resistance campaigns (violent and nonviolent) spanning more than a century, that:

First, resistance campaigns that compel loyalty shifts among security forces and civilian bureaucrats are likely to succeed. Such operational successes occur among violent campaigns occasionally [26%], but nonviolent campaigns are more likely to produce loyalty shifts [53%] . . . [Our] case studies reveal that three violent campaigns were unable to produce meaningful loyalty shifts among opponent elites, whereas such shifts did occur as a result of nonviolent action in the Philippines and East Timor. In addition, repression against nonviolent campaigns in the Philippines and East Timor resulted in well-timed international sanctions against the opponent regime, which proved instrumental in the success of these nonviolent campaigns. The domestic and international political costs of repressing nonviolent campaigns are higher than for repressing violent campaigns.[6]

The results of this systematic analysis show that nonviolent resistance is more than twice as effective as violent approaches in achieving intended goals. Based on a large dataset spanning over a century, their study demonstrates that societies experiencing periods of violent conflict, even when successful, tend to suffer from increased social unrest and instability in the aftermath.

Why Civil Resistance Works highlights several successful examples of nonviolent resistance movements. These include the prominent Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, which employed tactics such as boycotts and civil disobedience to achieve independence from British rule. The US Civil Rights Movement, which employed strategies such as sit-ins and marches, successfully fought against racial segregation. The Solidarity Movement in Poland, through strikes and demonstrations, brought down communist rule. The People Power Revolution in the Philippines saw the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship through nonviolent protests. The 1989 revolutions across Eastern Europe witnessed the collapse of communist regimes through widespread peaceful protests and civil disobedience in countries such as East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.[7] This is only a sampling, the book contains many more examples and comparisons from various places around the world.

Nonviolent Resistance Interpretation

Stant Litore shares an interesting perspective on Matthew 5:39-40:

In first-century Palestine, a Roman citizen could strike a Jew across the face because Romans regarded non-Romans as categorically inferior. They would therefore backhand, as they would a slave. To strike with your open palm would be to acknowledge the other as an equal. “Turning the other cheek” toward the Roman provided a means of nonviolent resistance: to force the oppressor into a choice of either not striking a second time or striking open-handed, in a way that acknowledges the other as an equal, as one who might call you to account for the violence or be justified in striking back. It is similar in concept to Gandhi’s ahimsa [which] is about maneuvering the oppressor into a situation in which they have to meet you eye to eye and acknowledge your shared humanity.[8]

He further discusses that Roman law permitted Roman citizens to demand labor from non-citizens, but with limitations on the duration of the labor. For instance, a Roman could force a Jew to carry their belongings for a single Roman mile. Jesus, however, instructs his followers to go the extra mile, thereby exceeding the requirement. This unexpected act of service would likely cause the Roman to relent, as they wouldn’t want to be penalized for exceeding the permitted amount of forced labor.[9]

The Why Civil Resistance Works article states, “Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining.” [10]

Thomas Schelling discusses this bargaining in another way: “[the] tyrant and his subjects are in somewhat symmetrical positions. They can deny him most of what he wants—they can, that is, if they have the disciplined organization to refuse collaboration. And he can deny them just about everything they want—he can deny it by using the force at his command. . . . They can deny him the satisfaction of ruling a disciplined country, he can deny them the satisfaction of ruling themselves. . . . It is a bargaining situation in which either side, if adequately disciplined and organized, can deny most of what the other wants, and it remains to see who wins.”[11]

Stant Litore later discusses in Lives of Unforgetting that instead of resorting to violence either through secret assassinations like the Sicarii or open rebellion like the Zealots, nor submitting to Roman rule like the priesthood, Jesus offers a radical alternative. He encouraged his followers to engage in acts of nonviolent resistance that “provoke the Romans to recognize [them] as fellow human beings. And pray for [their] persecutors—that in seeing [their] humanity, they will recover their own.” By demonstrating love and forgiveness, even towards their oppressors, Jesus believed they could awaken the Romans’ own conscience and shared humanity. This message resonated deeply with individuals like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who found in Jesus’ teachings a powerful framework for their own nonviolent struggles against oppression. They understood that true power lies not in inflicting harm, but in demonstrating the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, even in the face of injustice.[12]

Surrendering Our Honor

Another interpretation of Matthew 5:39 is that of surrendering our need to defend our honor.

Craig S. Keener in IVP New Testament Commentary states that a “backhanded blow to the right cheek . . . was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity ([Job 16:10] Lam 3:30[)] . . . In the case of an offense to our personal dignity, Jesus not only warns us not to avenge our honor by retaliating but suggests that we indulge the offender further. By freely offering our other cheek, we show that those who are secure in their status before God do not value human honor. Indeed, in some sense we practice resistance by showing our contempt for the value of our insulter’s (and perhaps the onlookers’) opinions!”^[13]

Creating Loving Boundaries

TAKE NOTE!: Interpreting Matthew 5:39 as a command to passively accept abuse (physical or mental) is a harmful misreading of the text. Jesus’ teachings on non-violence are not about condoning abuse or enabling an oppressor. They are about actively choosing love, forgiveness, and reconciliation over retaliation and violence. This doesn’t mean passively accepting harm.

The verse “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” from Luke 6:27 calls for a radical form of love that extends beyond simply enduring abuse. Genuine love may sometimes require setting boundaries and distancing oneself from toxic relationships. This separation, however, should not be motivated by malice or revenge, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of all involved. It can create space for healing and potential future reconciliation, even with those who have caused us harm. This approach emphasizes the importance of prioritizing long-term well-being, recognizing that authentic love sometimes requires difficult decisions.

Nonviolent resistance on a national/regional level can trigger international pressure through sanctions and diplomatic efforts, encouraging an oppressive regime to change its behavior. Similarly, on a personal level, seeking support from relevant authorities such as family, friends, or legal professionals when facing abuse can be a necessary step towards safety and reducing harm. Just as international pressure can influence other nations, seeking outside support can help individuals navigate interpersonal conflicts constructively and break free from harmful cycles. In both situations, the aim of the response is love for the other and a desire to bring transformation and restoration.

Conclusion

Jesus wasn’t advocating for passive submission or allowing oneself to be a victim. His call for non-violence is not about weakness or enabling the abuse of others, but about engaging in the power of love and reconciliation.

Jeffrey D. Meyers in The Nonviolent Apocalypse points out that nonviolence is an active form of resistance that opposes oppression and injustice without resorting to violence. It combines constructive efforts with acts of resistance, aiming for social transformation. This approach acknowledges the existence of systemic injustices and encourages individuals to confront and challenge the status quo through peaceful means.[14]

• Active, Not Passive: Jesus’ teachings on non-violence are about active, intentional engagement with the oppressor. It’s about disrupting the cycle of violence and injustice through creative, non-violent means.
  • Acts of service: Going the “second mile” as Jesus mentioned, or extending unexpected kindness to an enemy can be a powerful act of resistance. It forces the oppressor to confront their own humanity and the injustice of their actions.
  • Peaceful protest: This could involve boycotts, demonstrations, or other forms of civil disobedience that challenge the status quo and expose the injustices of the system.
  • Forgiveness as a Disruptive Force: Offering forgiveness to an enemy can be a deeply unsettling act. It challenges the oppressor’s assumptions about power and forces them to confront the consequences of their actions.
• Seeking Reconciliation, Not Submission: The goal of active nonviolence is not simply to endure suffering but to seek reconciliation and transformation. By demonstrating love and compassion, even in the face of injustice, the goal is to awaken the conscience of the oppressor and encourage them to change their ways.
• Recognizing Shared Humanity: At the heart of this approach is the recognition of shared humanity. By refusing to dehumanize the oppressor and treating them with dignity, even in the face of their wrongdoing, we open the door for empathy, understanding, and ultimately, reconciliation.

Jesus’ teachings on non-violence are not about passivity or weakness. They are about a powerful, active approach to overcoming evil that seeks to transform both the victim and the oppressor. By demonstrating love, forgiveness, and a commitment to justice, we can challenge the forces of oppression and work towards a more just and peaceful world.

---

^[1] John Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, vol. 35A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 294.

^[2] John Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, vol. 35A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 296.

[3] Philip Daileader, How the Crusades Changed History, The Great Courses, 2013. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-the-crusades-changed-history, Lecture 1.

[4] David E. Garland, Acts, ed. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 246.

[5] Michael Gonzalez, Resisting the Pull for Armed Defense, ReKnew, December 30, 2019, https://reknew.org/2019/12/resisting-the-pull-for-armed-defense/.

[6] Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, International Security 33, no. 1 (July 2008): 7–44, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7.

[7] Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012).

[8] Stant Litore, Lives of Unforgetting: What We Lose in Translation When We Read the Bible, and A Way of Reading the Bible as a Call to Adventure (Westmarch Publishing, 2019), 178–80.

[9] Stant Litore, Lives of Unforgetting: What We Lose in Translation When We Read the Bible, and A Way of Reading the Bible as a Call to Adventure (Westmarch Publishing, 2019), 178–80.

[10] Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, International Security 33, no. 1 (July 2008): 7–44, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7.

[11] Thomas C. Schelling, “Some Questions on Civilian Defense,” in Adam Roberts, ed., Civilian Resistance as a National Defense: Nonviolent Action against Aggression (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole, 1967), pp. 351–352.

[12] Stant Litore, Lives of Unforgetting: What We Lose in Translation When We Read the Bible, and A Way of Reading the Bible as a Call to Adventure (Westmarch Publishing, 2019), 178–80.

^[13] Craig S. Keener, Matthew, vol. 1, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), Mt 5:39.

[14] Jeffrey D. Meyers, The Nonviolent Apocalypse: Revelation’s Nonviolent Resistance Against Rome (Lanham, MD: Fortress Academic, 2021), 5.