Jesus’ Teaching in Matthew 5:38-42: Passive Submission

or Active Nonviolent Revolution?

Introduction
Those who consider the Bible as a liberative text see Mt.5:38-42 as one of the most
controversial passages in the New Testament. The interpretation of this passage down
through the centuries has played an important role in shaping Christian faith and practice in
general and Christology in particular. Interpreters have often used it as a counter-text to
negate the picture of a protesting and resisting Christ in the Gospels and present a Christ who
passively suffered everything without questioning and consequently teaching the followers of
Christ to tread the same path - meekly and submissively ‘turning the other cheek’ and
‘walking the second mile.’ Therefore, a critical examination of this passage, its translation
and interpretation in the Christian tradition with a view to arrive at a contextual interpretation
of the passage is worthwhile. The problem investigated in this essay is whether Mt.5:38-42
teaches active nonviolent revolution or not. If yes, what is the nature and purpose of that
nonviolent revolution? The first section of this essay will briefly outline the method and
methodology employed in this study and the second section will give an overview of the
various English versions, Indian vernacular translations and interpretations in the Christian
tradition up until the present. The third section will attempt a contextual interpretation of the
passage employing a Dalit perspective, informed by socio-cultural and political dynamics of
peasant societies. The final section will ponder on the implications of the interpretation of
this passage for biblical hermeneutics as well as Christian theology and practice.

I Method and Methodology

Method: Dalit Hermeneutics1
Hermeneutics of Experience: In India, nearly one foruth of the total population are Dalits,2
who are originally considered as ‘untouchables’ because of their continuous contact with jobs

1
For few examples of Dalit hermeneutics see Maria Arul Raja, “Assertion of the Periphery: Some Biblical
Paradigms,” Jeevadhara 27:157 (1997), 25-35; Idem, “Towards a Dalit Reading of the Bible: Some
Hermeneutical Discussions,” Jeevadhara 26: 151 (1996), 29-34; Idem, “Some Reflections on a Dalit Reading
of the Bible,” Indian Theological Studies XXXIII (3, 1996), 249-259; M. Gnanavaram, “‘Dalit Theology’ and
the Parable of the Good Samaritan,” JSNT 50 (1993), 59-83; George Soares-Prabhu, “The Table Fellowship of
Jesus: Its Significance for Dalit Christians in India Today,” Jeevadhara XXII: 128 (1992), 140-159; G.
Kanairkath, “A Dalit Reading of the Prophetic Writings,” in Indian Interpretation of the Bible, ed. A. Thottakara
(Bangalore: Dharmaram, 2000); 231-251; Dhyanchand Carr, “A Biblical Basis for Dalit Theology,” in
Indigenous People: Dalits: Dalit Issues in Today’s Theological Debate, ed. James Massey (Delhi: ISPCK,
1994), 231-49; V. V. Devasahayam, Doing Theology in Biblical Key (Madras: Gurukul, 1997); J.
Susaimanickam, “Dalit Hermeneutics: A Proposal For Reading the Bible,” Vaiharai 5 (3,4, 2000), 3-24: Idem,
“Protest: The Language of Prophecy,” Journal of Dharma XXVI (3, 2001), 311-335; Peniel R. Rajkumar,
“‘How’ Does the Bible Mean? The Bible and Dalit Liberation in India,” Political Theology 11(3, 2010), 410–
30; Royce Victor, “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: Liberation of a Dalit,” Asia Journal of Theology 30 (2,
2016), 160–76; also the thematic issue of Jeevadhara 22: 128 (1992): “Biblical Reflections on Dalit
Christians.” For more examples see K. Jesurathnam, “Towards a Dalit Liberative Hermeneutics: Re-reading the
Psalms of Lament,” Bangalore Theological Forum, 34 (No. 1, June 2002), 1-34 (esp.n.5).
2
“Identifying Resources for the Work of the Church and Community,” Workshop on Human Resources
Development, Nairobi, Kenya, Feb. 1998 – Report. Published by the Lutheran World Federation, Department
for Mission and Development, 52. It is estimated that majority of Indian Christians are Dalits and Tribals.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 2

related to impurity. According to the Vedas, the four varṇas, namely Brahmins (priests),
Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (traders), and Sudras (servants) were divinely ordained from
the very beginning, as they originated from Purusha.3 But the “untouchables” are treated as
outcastes, a fifth group, who fall outside the varṇa system since they are regarded as ritually
polluted. Dalit interpretation is possible only when the questions emerging from the Dalit pre-
understanding born out of consciousness in conflict enter into dialogue with the biblical text.4
In this process the life-experience of the reader has a privileged role and the interpretive
process foregrounds Dalit experience. For Monica Melanchthon, Dalit Samsara, i.e., the
socio-political, cultural and economic context of Dalits, is the hermeneutical starting point for
Dalit reading of the Bible.5 The culture, customs and practices of the context of the text can
be best examined by the use of social scientific methods, especially social history. This is
followed by establishing a relationship between the culture and history of the Dalits and the
culture and history of the biblical text.6 Such an exercise goes beyond looking for analogies
or parallels between biblical text and the Dalit context and critically evaluate various
ideologies and agendas underlying the biblical text. As Clodovis Boff has shown, a
meaningful contextual interpretation of the text can be achieved through identifying
correspondences in the relationship between the word of God and the context in the biblical
times and the relationship between the word of God and the present context.7
Hermeneutics of Suspicion: Dalit Biblical Hermeneutics employs effective use of
‘hermeneutics of suspicion,’ widely used in Liberation Biblical Hermeneutics. Suspicion is
applied not only to traditional biblical interpretations that claim to be neutral and at the same
time support the oppressive powers and practices, but also to the texts that legitimise
stratification of the society on the basis of purity laws and institutions.
Hermeneutics of Retrieval: In the Dalit Reading of the Bible the biblical texts are
carefully examined to retrieve the texts that resonate with Dalit experience and aspirations for
dignity and equal status in the society. The subversive and conflict narratives in the Bible
have a special appeal to the Dalits because these narratives stress the affirmation of the rights
of the powerless and the exploited and call the oppressors and the powerful to transformation.
Hermeneutics of Deconstruction: Y. T. Vinayaraj proposes a Postmodern Dalit Biblical
Hermeneutics which he calls, “Dalit Hermeneutics of Deconstruction” for “deconstructing
the power play embodied in the text.”8 In this method the Dalits draw on “inter-textuality,

3
Ṛig Veda 10.90: 11-12 says, “When they divided Puruṣa how many portions did they make? …The Brahman
was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made. His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra
was produced.” http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10090.htm (Accessed on Aug.22, 2021).
4
A. Maria Arul Raja, “Reading the Bible from a Location: Some Points for Interpretation,” Voices from the
Third World vol. 23 (No.1, 2000), 77, 79.
5
Monica J. Melanchthon, “Dalit Readers of the Word: The Quest for the Hermeneutics and Method”, in
Frontiers of Dalit Hermeneutics, eds. James Massey & Samuel Prabhakar (Bangalore/Delhi: BTESSC/CDSS,
2005), 54.
6
Arul Raja, “A Dialogue Between Dalits and Bible,” 42.
7
See Clodovis Boff, Theology and Praxis: Epistemological Foundations, trans. R. R. Barr (Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, 1978), 146-150; also Sam Peedikayil Mathew, Method of Message of Gautama Buddha and
Jesus Christ: Explorations in Cross-Scripture Hermeneutics (Bangalore: CISRS/ISPCK, 2020), 204.
8
Y. T. Vinayaraj, Re-imagining Dalit Theology: Postmodern Readings (Tiruvalla: CSS, 2008), 60.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 3

intra-texutality and extra-textuality.”9 As Monica Melanchthon points out, Dalit cultural

products, their “experiences of revolt, protest and revival, living stories that are told and retold” are
the other texts that are to be read along with the Bible.10 Dalit Hermeneutics of Deconstruction
employs Dalit stories, biographies, lyrics, songs, dances, festivals, cultural symbols and even
their bodies.11
Hermeneutics of Liberation: The Dalit reading is for the transformation of the individual
as well as the whole community and not mere understanding. The aim of Dalit interpretation
of the biblical text is to realise the vision of a community without oppression, exploitation
and exclusion, based on equality and justice. Towards that end it strives for the radical
transformation of the dominant as well as the liberation of the subjugated and the excluded.
As Jesurathnam states, “the Dalit liberative praxis oriented hermeneutics is geared towards
the liberation of Dalits from the psychological, cultural and social oppression and to empower
them to get organized in their struggle for freedom.”12
Hermeneutics of Identity & Empowerment: K. Jesurathnam, through his study of laments
in the Hebrew Bible observes that biblical texts give the Christian Dalits, who have been
brainwashed with “feeling of low self esteem” and a sense of inherited bad karma, “a sense of
identity they have been robbed off for centuries.”13 “Their self-identity and self-worth as
God’s children is assured” as they read the biblical texts, such as lament Psalms.14 It is further
noted that as Dalits are made powerless by the oppressive caste system, biblical texts
empower the Dalit Christians “as they find God’s solidarity with them in their dalitness.”
“Because of this solidarity they fight against oppressive and dehumanizing structures that
work against them.”15

Methodology
James Scott’s ‘Weapons of the Weak’ and ‘Arts of Resistance’
In order to have a deeper and wider understanding of the cultural, social and political
dynamics at work in the life and times of Jesus, this study will employ two concepts found in
James Scott’s works: 1) the subversive popular politics of the public and hidden transcripts in
the discourse between the dominant and subordinates in agrarian societies;16 and 2) the
identification of weapons employed by the weak in their everyday forms of resistance to the
exploiters and oppressors.17

9
Vinayaraj, Re-imagining, 60.
10
Monica J. Melanchthon, “Dalits, Bible, and Method,” SBL Forum, n.p. [cited Oct 2005]. Online:http://sbl-
site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=459 (Accessed on Aug.26, 2021).
11
Vinayaraj, Re-imagining, 61.
12
Jesurathnam,”Towards a Dalit Liberative Hermeneutics,” 3.
13
K. Jesurathnam, Dalit Liberative Hermeneutics: Indian Christian Dalit Interpretation of Psalm 22 (New
Delhi: ISPCK, 2010), 265.
14
Jesurathnam, Dalit Liberative Hermeneutics, 265.
15
Jesurathnam, Dalit Liberative Hermeneutics, 265.
16
James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1990).
17
James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1985).
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 4

Since Scott emphasizes that politics cannot be understood apart from culture and religion,
his work can help biblical scholars expand the spectrum of social reality of the life and times
of Jesus, especially power relations of domination and resistance evident in or just under the
surface of many biblical texts. As Horsley observes, “In dealing with patterns of domination
and subordination that have structured many historical and contemporary societies, Scott not
only insists that religion and culture operate in close interrelationship with politics and
economics but presents subtle and sophisticated ways of dealing with that
interrelationship.”18 Giving due importance to material dimension of domination and
subjugation, “Scott shows how domination operates in the interrelated area of human feelings
and passions through cultural forms of interaction in ways that make material domination
possible and effective.”19 The work of James Scott can help New Testament interpreters
understand how the material and political dimensions are interconnected with the emotional
and religious dimensions.
Instead of understanding social-political realities in terms of simple alternatives, such as
acceptance and acquiescence or protest and rebellion, Scott argues that discontent and
resistance are far more prevalent, widespread, and complex in their motives and methods than
these simple alternatives allow. Scott points out that subordinated people have developed a
whole range of different forms of resistance that are to be seen as part and parcel of more
complex political processes, forms of resistance that can cause outbursts of rebellion and
revolution. Underlining the wide ranging implications of the work of Scott for understanding
Jesus in his socio-political context, Horsley says, “Just because Jesus does not lead an armed
assault on the temple and the Roman garrison in Jerusalem does not mean that he was not
engaged in a message and program of revolutionary change.”20 Scott’s work help Biblical
interpreters overcome methodological individualism and religious or economic reductionism
in the interpretation of the Bible.

II Various English versions and Indian Vernacular Translations of Mt.5:39a

The key verse in Mt.5:38-42 is v.39a. Therefore it is necessary to examine the translation of
this verse in various English versions and Indian vernacular versions.
a) English Versions
“But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil….” (English Standard Version)
“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil…” (King James Version)
“But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil….” (New American Bible)
“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person….” (New International Version)
“But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked….” (New Jerusalem Bible)
“But I say, don't resist an evil person!....” (New Living Translation)
“But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer….” (New Revised Standard Version)
18
Richard A. Horsley, “Introduction: Jesus, Paul, and the “Arts of Resistance”: Leaves from the Notebook of
James C. Scott”, in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus
and Paul, ed., Richard A. Horsley (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2004), 3.
19
Horsley, “Introduction,” 3.
20
Horsley, “Introduction,” 7.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 5

“But I tell you not to resist an evil person….” (New King James Version)
“But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil….” (Revised Standard Version)
“but I say to you, not to resist the evil, ….”(Young’s Literal Translation)
“But I say to you, Do not violently resist the evil doer.” (Scholar’s Version)
b) Some Indian Vernacular Translations
: (Malayalam)
; ; (Tamil)
, (Telugu)
; (Kannada)
यह ह ; (Hindi)
Saka ni nenok dang ashir, Tamajunger den terara (Ao Naga)
Kei erawh chuan ka hrilh a che u; mi sual dodâl suh u; (Mizo)
It is noteworthy that in almost all English versions, except Scholar’s version, the verb
avntisth/nai is translated as “resist against.” Indian vernacular translations also blindly follow
the same translation.

III Interpretations of Mt. 5: 38-42 in the Christian Tradition: An Overview

a) Interpretations before the Historical-Critical Period
U. Luz has given a helpful summary of the history of interpretation of “Do not resist evil”,
which is understood as the general principle in Mt.5:38-42.21 Luz has identified two main
lines of interpretations in the history of the Church till the Reformation period:
i) “Rigorist” Interpretations
The Church in the pre-Constantine period interpreted “Do not resist evil” literally and
rejected entrance of Christians into the army.22 For example, Tertullian extends Mt.5:40 to all
possessions and is willing to give away his clothes if only his faith is threatened. 23 However,
in the post-Constantine times the literal interpretation of the early fathers was found among
the heretics, minority churches or groups, such as Waldensians, Francis of Assissi,
Wycliffites, Erasmus, the Anabaptists, the Quakers, Tolstoy, M. K. Gandhi, 24 Albert
Schweitzer, Christian pacifists, many Black Theologians and Jehowah’s Witnesses.25 Tolstoy
considered Mt.5:39 as “the very essence of Christianity.”26 But he argues against suffering
for its own sake and says, “Christ does not at all demand that one offer the cheek and give up
the cloak only for the sake of suffering.” He interprets the formula “never use force” as
“never do anything contrary to the law of love.”27

21
U. Luz, Matthew 1-7, translated by W. C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 331-335.
22
J. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War (London: Headly, 1919), 49-243, cited by Luz, Matthew, 331.
23
Fuga 13=PL2,117-19.
24
Mahatma Gandhi said that the Sermon on the Mount went straight into his heart. He interpreted Mt.5:39ff. as
“renunciation,” which is the highest form of religion. (M. K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My
Experiments with Truth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), 68-69. Gandhi’s understanding of renunciation of force
seems to have contributed to his understanding nonviolence (Ahimasa) as a form of protest, especially peaceful
civil disobedience and no-cooperation against the British rule. (498)
25
Luz, Matthew, 332.
26
L. Tolstoy, My Confession, My Religion, the Gospel in Brief (New York: Scribners, 1929), 13.
27
Tolstoy, My Confession, 9, 13.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 6

ii) “Mitigating” Interpretations

Augustine, the father of the ‘mitigating’ interpretation, considered that the teaching of
Jesus in Mt.5:38f. “in no way agrees with the customs of the state.” In his attempt to defuse
the conflict between the state and the demands of Jesus, he considered a person living in the
state ruled by Christians as in the same situation as a father who must punish his son:
sometimes it is necessary to carry out actions with a certain benign roughness, where “one
has to act more by usefulness than according to the will of God.” Among these things are the
‘merciful war’ if it can be conducted as such, which he calls ‘just war,’ and punishment
which is to be carried out at the right spirit, i.e., without hatred - even if it were capital
punishment.28 The harshness of Jesus’ commandment in Mt.5:38f. has been diluted in the
early Church using allegorical interpretation. For example, Jerome interpreted offering of the
cheek as offering of the right doctrine over against heretical objections. In the later two-level
ethic medieval period, as Thomas Aquinas taught, the prohibition of arms is valid only for
clerics, that of suing only for monks.29
iii) Interpretations of Reformers
Commenting on Mt.5:38f., Luther speaks of the “Christian-in-relation: not about being a
Christian, but about his life and his obligation in it to some other person…like a lord or a
lady, a way or children or neighbors”30 For Luther, the Law applies to the world, but the
commandments of the Sermon on Mount only to the Christians.31 According to Luther,
participation of Christians in the law and order takes place out of responsibility toward the
neighbor.32 The Christian must be able to forgo Jesus’ command of the renunciation of force
for the sake of the neighbour. This applies to first officials as well as to warriors.33
Calvin went further than Luther in insisting that Christians should “with entire friendship
for their enemies, use the aid of the magistrate for the preservation of their goods.”34 This
view had far reaching influence in the Reformation Churches. For instance, Schleiermacher
held that the general willingness to suffer injustice means the end of civil society as long as
there are evil doers in it.35
The command in v.42 is attenuated in the Christian tradition in manifold ways. For
instance, Jerome says: “Money…which is not lacking when given away, namely wisdom!”36
The greatest gift, according to Gregory the Great, is pity. 37 Some have insisted on dignity and
justice in the praxis of this command. Cyril of Alexandria taught that the suppliant must be

28
Augustine, The Sermon on the Mount Expounded (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973), 1.20. Luz, Matthew, 333.
29
Thomas, Lectura no.542.544. Luz, Matthew, 333.
30
Luther Works, 45,81-129.
31
Luther Works, 45,92.
32
Luther Works, 45.94
33
Luther Works, 21,110; 46, 93-137.
34
Institutes 4.20.20.
35
F. Schleiermacher, Der christliche Sitte (Berlin: Reimer, 1861), 259-63. This argument was first presented by
Celsus! (Origen, Cels.8.68), cited by Luz, Matthew, 333.
36
Thomas, Lectura no.549.
37
Thomas, Lectura no.548. “It is more to have compassion from the heart than to give.”
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 7

worthy and the request just.38 Tertullian urges reason when giving: “One doesn’t give wine to
somebody suffering fever or a sword to a candidate for suicide.”39 Luz concludes the history
of interpretation of this command succinctly: “The mocking comment of Julian the Apostate,
who wondered what would happen if the Christians would take this command seriously has
remained effective throughout many centuries and has sheltered Christianity from an all-too-
literary interpretation of and obedience to this commandment!”40
b) Interpretations during the Historical-critical and Literary Critical Period41
It is noteworthy that most scholars who adopted historical-critical and literary methods for
the interpretation of Mt.5:38-42 agree that the subject matter of the passage is “Do not resist”,
i.e., nonresistance or non-retaliation, though they differ in the translation of tw/| ponhrw/| (evil
person or evil deed). These scholars consider Mt.5:39a: “Do not resist evil…” as the general
principle.42
Applying the “criterion of dissimilarity,” Luz argues that it is “very probable” that
Mt.5:39a-41 originated with Jesus.43 However, some scholars are of the view that since
Luke’s parallel lacks the command “Do not resist”, the whole passage is “the work of
composition.”44
Gundry thinks that avntisth/nai is drawn from Is. 50:8 (esp. LXX), where “the expression
has to do with verbal resistance in the court of law: “the Lord himself will vindicate his
servant, thus the vindication will not be the servant’s own doing.”45 Davies and Allison also
agree that avntisth/nai has a forensic meaning: “Do not oppose in court”.46
Gundry finds symmetry and parallelism in the artistic composition of Mt.5:39-42: “And
whoever will requisition you one mile, go with him two” (v.41) balances “But will strikes on
your right cheek, turn to him the other, also.”(v.39). “To the one who asks you, give” (v.42)
balances “And the one wants to sue you and take your tunic, allow to him your cloak, also.”
(v.40) The concluding “And do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
(v.42) corresponds to the Introductory “But I say to you not to resist an evil person.”(v.39)47
According to Gundry, Matthean composition of v.41 as an extension of Jesus’ teaching is
intended “to fulfill his theological purpose to emphasize that disciples must learn from him

38
Cyril of Alexandria, Fragment 66.
39
Tertullian, Fuga 13=PL 2.18.
40
Luz, Matthew, 333. Julian interprets the demand of Jesus literally and concludes that they are “living in
another world.” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Or.4:9)
41
Out attempt in this essay is not to exhaustively deal with all historical-critical and literary critical
interpretations of Mt.5:38-42, but to illustrate the major trends in the interpretation of the passage in some
prominent commentaries.
42
So W. D. Davies & Dale Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, The International Critical
Commentary of Matthew, vol. I (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 538.
43
Luz, Matthew, 324.
44
R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on the Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1982), 94.
45
Gundry, Matthew, 94.
46
Cf. Deut.19:18; Josephus, C. Ap.2.23 uses the word for adversaries in battle (cf.War.7.246) Davies & Allison,
Saint Matthew, 543.
47
Gundry, Matthew, 94.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 8

who is meek and lowly in heart (11:29).”48 Hagner also says that in this passage there is
strong parallelism of form, especially between v.39b and v.41, and to a lesser degree between
v.40 and v.42a.49
Lloyd-Jones interprets the passage as having a “very spiritual meaning” and says that “this
teaching applies to the Christian in his personal relationships and not in his relationship as a
citizen of his country.”50 He further says, “Surely there is but one principle in this teaching,
and that is a man’s attitude toward himself.”51 According to Lloyd-Jones, the first example in
the passage teaches that “we must rid ourselves of the spirit of retaliation, of the desire to
defend ourselves and to revenge ourselves for any injury or wrong that is done to us.” The
second example of cloak and coat teaches us against the tendency to insist upon our rights,
legal rights and the third example of going the second mile means that, “not only are we to do
what is demanded of us, we are to go beyond it in the spirit of our Lord’s teaching.” 52 Hagner
also interprets the passage in the same line and says that we find here ethics of the kingdom
“directed more to conduct at the personal level, rather than societal level.”53 Jesus himself
provides the supreme example of this ethic as seen in the passion narratives.54
Davies and Allison argue that in this passage Jesus teaches about discipleship and
“personal rights and honour,” using exaggeration or hyperbole.55 Although they state that,
“even if it concerns not the affairs of the state but discipleship, it is hardly possible, given the
Jewish situation in the first century, to empty the passage altogether of political meaning,”
they conclude that “Mt.5:38-42 could not but have pacifist implications.”56 For Gundry,
Mt.5:39-41 is a Matthean creation, partly out of Isaiah “with an eye on exemplary meekness
of Jesus the Lord’s servant” in order to teach meekness to the disciples and all the three
examples show that “surpassing righteousness requires meekness even in the face of the
worst insult.”57 Filson is of the view that in this passage Jesus teaches the disciples how to

48
Gundry, Matthew, 94.
49
D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, 33A (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1993), 130.
50
D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, vol. I (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1959), 277-79.
51
Lloyd-Jones, Sermon on the Mount, 278.
52
Lloyd-Jones, Sermon on the Mount, 281-86.
53
Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 131.
54
Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 132.
55
Davies & Allison, Saint Matthew, 542.
56
They argue that, “the attempt to make Jesus into to a revolutionary will not bear critical scrutiny.” See M.
Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? Translation of War Jesus Revolutionär? (1970) (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1971); J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1972). Luz also argues in the
same line when he says, “Matthew did not think primarily and specifically in political terms of the renunciation
of force. However, one must no exclude the political realm.” (Italics mine) Luz, Matthew, 330. He further says
that “on the political application, one may remember that Christians in the rebellion of 66-70 belonged to the
party of peace.”[cf. L. Schottroff, “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen Jesustradition (Mt 5,
38-48; Lk 6, 27-36),” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (Festscfrift H. Conzelmann), ed. G Strecker
(Tübingen: Mohr, 1975), 197-221, esp.219.]
57
Gundry, Matthew, 95. Fenton interprets the passage as teaching non-resistance: “evil actions are not to be
resisted, demands are to be met with double that which is demanded.” J. C. Fenton, Saint Matthew, The Pelican
New Testament Commentaries (Hermondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963), 3. So also Curtis Mitch and
Edward Sri, The Gospel of Matthew, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2010), 99-100. Other scholars also see reflection of Is.50:4-9 in Mt.5:38-42. For example, it
has been pointed out that there are seven correlations in vocabulary between this text and Isaianic text. (Davies
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 9

react to unfair or unreasonable treatment, such as physical violence, litigation, forced service,
demand for gift or loans: overcome evil with good (Rom.12:21).58 Luz says that “nonviolence
and giving up of one’s rights determine the behaviour of the community towards the world,
as an example of lived discipleship…”, and not an internal sectarian principle.59 Albright and
Mann comment that the savage ruthlessness of the law of the Old Covenant is contrasted with
the “law of charity.”60 Charles Talbert also thinks that renunciation of retaliation is the
general principle in this passage. He translated Mt.5:39a: “But I say to you do no retaliate
against the evil person.”61 He argues that since the true intent of lex talionis principle is to
limit revenge and that intent is better realized through non-retaliation than literal application
of the principle of an eye for an eye.62
Regarding the motive for acting in a peculiar manner in this passage, Davies and Allison
observe that no pragmatic motive is given: “This means that the question of whether or not
the world will be transformed by such actions is just not addressed.”63 Although admonition
to suffer injustice is widespread in all antiquity,64 Luz also agrees that the motivation for the
renunciation of force is lacking in our passage. “Any hint which could explain these demands
as prudent and reasonable is missing.” “At the least, Jesus’ demands do not consider their
consequences, which might be very ambivalent; it could happen that one who strikes winds
up for another hit, that the poor person without a cloak has to freeze and that the hostile
occupation power is strengthened!”65 Luz finds a “piece of conscious provocation” in this
saying, a “symbolic protest against the regular use of force,” which dehumanizes the human
being and hope for a better behavior of the person from that which is the everyday
experience.66 Concurring with Tannehill’s interpretation of the three examples in Mt.5:39-42
as “focal instance,” inviting the listener to extend this pattern to new situations, Luz
comments:
They are…intensified images of a behavior which must be discovered and realized in
all realms of life….These demands intend to be obeyed, not simply literally, but in

& Allison, Saint Matthew, 544). John P Meier, Matthew, New Testament Message 3 (Collegeville, Minnesota:
Liturgical Press, 1980), 54 considers the prohibition of retaliation and any court action to obtain retribution as
part of eschatological reality.
58
F. V. Filson, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: Adam &
Charles Black, 1st pub.1960, reprint 1970), 89. Davies & Allison, Saint Matthew, 541 also agrees that Jesus is
teaching us “to requite evil with good.” They provide parallels from rabbinic literature (e. g,, b.Sabb.88b) and
Greek philosophers (e.g., Plutarch, Pericl.5) and Epictetus (Ench.42)
59
Luz, Matthew, 331.
60
W. F. Albright & C. S. Mann, Matthew, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday), 68. The lex
talionis (law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offence committed in kind and degree.)
mentioned here, “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” referred to Ex.21:24-25; Lev.24:20; Deut.19:21.
61
C. H. Talbert, Matthew, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Academic Press, 2010), 86.
62
Talbert, Matthew, 86.
63
Davies & Allison, Saint Matthew, 546.
64
Luz gives examples from the Platonic and Stoic traditions (cf. Plato, Gorg.496c; Seneca, Deirs 2.33.2; Marcus
Aurelius, 9.27) and numerous references in Socrates. Luz, Matthew, 324.
65
Luz, Matthew, 326-27. He cites the experience of Ignatius, who says that the soldiers became progressively
worse through good deeds shown to them (Ignatius. Rom.5:1).
66
Luz, Matthew, 327-28.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 10

such a way that what they demand is to be ‘discovered’ anew in new situations, in
freedom, but in similar radicality.67
Luz also finds in this passage “a contrast between the Kingdom of God and the world”
breaking open: “Only in this can contrast character - deliberately protesting and reversing
normal behavior - be understood.”68 The provocative renunciation of force is understood as
an expression of love of the enemy which is proclaimed in v.44: “Negatively love means
renunciation of counterforce and resistance (vv.39-41). What it means positively will be
made clear in vv.44-47.”69
W. Wink argues that a closer examination of his audience, the context of the passage and
the meaning of avntisth/nai shows that Jesus’ radical message was “not one of
nonresistance… but rather of active nonviolent resistance.”70 He points out that in all three of
the examples in Mt.5:39b-41, Jesus’ listeners are the victims, not those who strike, initiate
lawsuits, or impose forced labor. “There are among Jesus’ hearers people who were subjected
to these very indignities, forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment
meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and
status, and as a result of imperial occupation.”71 All the three examples show defiance of the
poor and the oppressed demanding equal treatment and dignity, protesting and resisting
creatively against oppression and humiliation.
Employing sociopolitical reading, W. Carter understands Mt.5:38-42 as the fifth “for
example of life in God’s empire” that envisions “active nonviolent resistance” to the
oppressive imperial context of domination and violence.72 Based on the context in which this
passage is placed and the meaning of the verb avntisth/nai, he translates Mt.5:39a: “But I say
to you, Do not violently resist an evil doer.” Carter comments that “the issue is not whether to
resist or not fight or flight, passive submission or violent retaliation but how evil is resisted.
Jesus’ teaching offers a third option, nonviolent resistance.”73
Thus, the history of interpretation of Mt.5:38-42 shows that though this passage was
understood literally during the pre-Constantine period, later during the post-Constantine
period it has given way to allegorical and ‘mitigating’ interpretations, accommodating the

67
R. Tannehill, “’The focal Instance’ as a Form of New Testament Speech: A Study of Matthew 5, 39b-42”,
Journal of Religion 50 (1970), 382-85. Luz, Matthew, 328. Talbert, Matthew, 86 also notes that all four
illustrations are “very specific’ and “extreme.” “The language of this pericope gives a shock that arouses moral
imagination, enabling the auditors to see their situation in a new way and to contemplate new possibilities of
action.” (87)
68
Luz, Matthew, 328.
69
Luz, Matthew, 331.
70
W. Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence: Jesus’ Third Way (Matt. 5:38-42 par.),” in The Love of Enemy and
Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1992), 102-125. However, Wink, following the study of the Hebrew text of Matthew by W. Howard
[George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, Ga.: Mercer
University Press, 1987), 20-21] thinks that the original saying in v.39a would have been “Do not repay evil for
evil,” which Matthew translated differently to fit to the lex talionis in v.38.
71
Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 105.
72
Following W. Wink’s interpretation, W. Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious
Reading, Bible and Liberation Series (Bangalore: Theological Publication of India, 2007), 150.
73
Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 151.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 11

passage to suit the interests of the Church. Most commentators during the historical-critical
and literary-critical period were predominantly obsessed with historicity and/or the literary
traits of the passage, with little or no concern for the meaning of the passage for their context.
A few scholars, who wrestled with the area of application of this passage, limited it to the
personal, religious/spiritual sphere of the Christian, falling into methodological individualism
and reductionism.
III A Dalit Interpretation of Matthew 5:38-42
1. Interpreting the Passage from a Dalit Perspective
Interpreting Matthew 5:38-42 through the experience of Dalits who are oppressed in
manifold ways in India for centuries on account of their caste help us understand better the
pain and pathos reflected in the passage.74 The public humiliation, indignity, inequality, and
physical violence faced by the Dalits in life and death resonate with the experience of the
victims of public physical violence and insult, debt burden and military oppression in our
passage. The Dalits see this passage through their collective memories of supine submission
to caste oppression as well as protest and resistance against their social and economic
oppression, giving them hope of liberation.75 Seen through the eyes of the Dalits who face
similar experience reflected in the victims of indignity and oppression in our passage,
Mt.5:39a cannot be understood as teaching, “Do not resist the evil person,” as Dalit history
teaches us that only through active resistance liberation is possible for them. Furthermore,
such an understanding will not be compatible with the Dalit Christology which is based on
the Nazareth Manifesto of Jesus (Lk.4:18-19), which presents Jesus’ mission basically as
liberation of the oppressed (Dalits).76
a) Context of the Passage
The theme of resistance is carefully woven into the fabric of the narrative framework of
Matthew’s Gospel. It is clearly made visible by the inclusion of four women who resisted
patriarchal oppression and exclusion in the genealogy of Matthew (Mt.1:1-17) and in the
resistance exhibited by the wise men before Herod, the king of Palestine who plotted to get
the child Jesus killed (Mt.2). In the four scenes (Mt.4:1-11; 4:17-25; 5:3-6 and 5:7-16) that
preceded Mt.5:38-42, the audience is exhorted to resist doing evil.77 Since this passage can be
interpreted as a negative exhortation to love one’s enemy through nonviolent resistance, as
we will show below, this passage fits well with the sixth antithesis in Mt.5:43-44, where the

74
Correspondences could be found between the Dalit World and the Biblical world, despite the differences. See
for details, L. Fernando & J. Massey, eds. Dalit World - Biblical World: An Encounter (New Delhi:
CDS/Vidyajyoti, 2007).
75
For instance, ‘the temple entry movement’ of Dalits in Kerala under the leadership Sri Narayana Guru became
successful in 1936 after a prolonged protest and “upper cloth revolt,” led by Muthu Kutty of Swamithopu in
Travancore, that gained the rights of women to cover their breasts on July 26, 1859 were clearly Dalit liberation
movements that resisted Dalit humiliation and oppression successfully. The strict imposition of “breast tax” and
the distance pollution on the Dalits in Kerala illustrate very well the extreme and dehumanizing practice of caste
system.
76
It noteworthy that the Hindi Bible translates “the oppressed” as ‘dalits’ in Lk.4:18.
77
Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 151.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 12

exhortation to love one’s enemy is positively given. Thus the immediate context of the
passage indicates that Jesus could not have taught not to resist the evil.
If this passage is placed in the wider context of Jesus’ life and practice also we find that
Jesus resisted the powers of evil through his parables and miracles. Recent scholarship
interprets the miracles of Jesus as acts of protests and resistance against the oppression,
exclusion and injustice meted out to the poor, the sick and the infirm. They are understood as
acts of protest against unjust and discriminatory social practices, like purity system and acts
of liberation from oppressive social and political structures of that time.78 The healing
miracles served as a beginning of a just and egalitarian borderless society, which he called
reign of God. Jesus’ healing narratives, especially casting out of demons, are also seen as a
form of political resistance and symbolic defeat of Roman rule, based on violence and
exploitation.79 In the public ministry of Jesus we could see the activity of Jesus as active
resistance against the manifestation of evil in various ways, culminating in the Temple action
of Jesus (Mt.21:12-13) and the subsequent stringent criticism of the supporters of the Temple
state, such as scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees.80 The identification of Christ the judge with
the poor, the sick, the prisoner and the stranger in the final discourse of Matthew 25:31-46
also can be seen as a protest against those who exploit, oppress and exclude the poor and the
marginalised.
b) Analysis of the Passage81
Based on Liddell-Scott’s definition of avnqi,sthmi as “to set against esp. in battle,
withstand,” Wink has pointed out that avnqi,sthmi is used as a military term. In the LXX 44 out
of 71 times the term is used primarily for armed resistance in military encounters. 82 The
translation “resist not” does not fit the aggressive nonviolent actions described in the three
examples. Since in these three instances Jesus provides strategies for resisting oppression, it
is altogether inconsistent for him to counsel people in almost the same breath not to resist it.83
Therefore, the correct translation of Mt.5:39a is: “Do not violently resist the evil doer.”
In the first example in v.39b, the mention of right cheek indicates that it could be striking
with the back of the hand. As Wink observes, this is a case of insult and humiliation of the

78
See R. A. Horsely & N. A. Siberman, The Message of the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution
and Transformed the Ancient World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 43-64.
79
John J. Pilch, “Jesus’ Healing Activity: Political Acts?,” Understanding the Social World of the New
Testament, eds. D. Neufeld & R. E. De Maris (London: Routledge, 2010), 154 interprets Jesus’ healings as
‘treasonous political behavior.’ Mathew, Method of Message, 146.
80
John also portrays not only Jesus’ angry Temple action with whip of cords (Jn. 2:13-17), but also his protest
against the action of the officer when he is stricken (Jn.18:22-23). Paul protests against the magistrate in Philippi
when Paul and Silas were beaten and thrown into prison. Both James and Peter also exhorted to resist the devil
(Jam.4:7; I Pet.5:9).
81
This analysis of the passage assumes that Matthew faithfully communicated the words and deeds of Jesus in
the tradition with some modifications. No attempt is made to separate tradition and redaction in this passage.
82
The Abridged Liddel-Scott Lexicon. Database on-line. Available from Bible Works for Windows 6.0, 1992-
2003 Databases, Hermeneutika. Computer Bible Research Software, Big Fork, MT 5991-2244. Josephus uses
avnqi,sthmi for violent struggle 15 out of 17 times; Philo, 4 out of 10. “Resistance implies ‘counteractive
aggression,’ a response to hostilities initiated by someone else.” E.g., Eph.6:13; Wink, “Neither Passivity nor
Violence”, 114.
83
Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence”, 113.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 13

inferior: “The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her
‘place’.”84 Exorbitant fines were imposed for striking a peer with backhand and a backhanded
slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors.85 By turning the left cheek the person struck
put the striker in an untenable spot, as the left cheek can be hit only with the fist, asserting
equal treatment and defiance before humiliation.86
The second example in v.40 deals with the case of a poor person taken to court due to
indebtedness - probably a direct consequence of imperial policy87 - and has nothing but his
garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jesus asks the person to give the outer garment
(cloak) when the inner garment (tunic) is taken away. As Luz comments, the giving away of
the cloak is much more valuable than the tunic, as an indirect opposition to the Old
Testament law of pledging is found here. The law stipulates that to the poor man who gives
his cloak as a pledge, one must return this cloak every evening, so that he can sleep in it.88
Jesus’ saying would mean stripping off all his/her clothing and marching out of court stark
naked. It is to be noted that nakedness was taboo in Judaism, and the blame fell not on the
naked party but on the person viewing or causing one’s nakedness.89 Wink imagines the
hilarity this saying evokes thus: “There stands the creditor, covered with shame, the poor
debtor’s outer garment in the one hand, his undergarment in the other.”90 The poor person has
turned the tables on the creditor by shaming the dominant and protesting against the
economic and social humiliation.
The third example in v.41 refers to angeria, the Roman military law that permitted a
soldier to force a civilian to carry 65-85 pound pack for one mile.91 As the soldier is required
to relieve the civilian at the second mile, the soldier is made culpable of violation of military
law, thereby putting the soldier in jeopardy of punishment.92 Wink comments: “From a
situation of servile impressment, the oppressed have once more seized the initiative. They
have taken back the power of choice. The soldier is thrown off balance by being deprived of
the predictability of his victim's response.”93

84
Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 105.
85
M. Baba Qamma 8.6 specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for cuffing (slugging with a fist), 4 zuz
(a zuz was a day's wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but “if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay
him 400 zuz.“Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.”
(105) Luz, Matthew, 325, n.14 notes that I Esdr.4:30 (LXX) mentions a slap as special insult.
86
W. Wink, “We Must Find a Better Way”, in Strike Terror No More: Theology, Ethics and the New Year, ed.
Jon L. Bequist (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2002), 330-31.
87
Wink notes, “Emperors had taxed the wealthy so stringently to fund their wars that the rich began seeking
nonliquid investments to secure their wealth.” Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 107. The rich landlords
often collaborated with the imperial rulers.
88
Ex.22:26f.; Deut.24:12f. Luz, Matthew, 326
89
See for example, Gen. 9:20-27.Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 107.
90
Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 107.
91
Wink, “We Must Find a Better Way,” 331. However, some scholars are reluctant to accept the context of
Roman military occupation. Cf. Luz, Matthew, 326 says that “this verse perhaps not definitely implies a point
against Roman power of occupation.” (Italics mine)
92
Wink, “We Must Find a Better Way”, 331.
93
Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 111.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 14

The command to give to the one who begs from you and not to refuse the one who
borrows from you in v.42 is clearly an expression of love for the victims of indebtedness and
dispossession. If the perpetrators of indebtedness and oppression are nonviolently resisted in
vv.39-41, effective concern and compassion for those who suffer from the situation of
indebtedness and abject poverty is seen in v.42. Thus, Jesus in Mt.5:38-42 teaches nonviolent
revolutionary love - love that is aimed at the liberation of the subjugated as well as the
dominant – and at the same time brings immediate relief to the indebted and the dispossessed.
As Wink puts it succinctly, it is “a new response, fired in the crucible of love, that promises
to liberate the oppressed from evil even as it frees the oppressor from sin.”94
Although Wink’s interpretation takes care of the social, economic and political
dimensions of the teaching of Jesus in this passage, the nonviolent resistance still remains at
the personal level and such resistance is not part of the revolution or rebellion.95 Such an
understanding doesn’t appreciate the wide-ranging socio-political significance of these three
examples as social formulations with a specific political agenda. This interpretation can be
corrected by employing some insights from James Scott.
c) Socio-cultural and Political Dynamics Reflected in the Text
Scott has identified “the weapons of the weak” which lie beneath the “rituals of
deference” and “symbolic compliance” demanded of the weak as part of the onstage political
play.96 These weapons support the “everyday forms of peasant resistance - the prosaic but
constant struggle between the peasantry and those who seek to extract labor, food, taxes,
rents and interest from them.” Such weapons include “foot dragging, dissimulation, false
compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander, arson, sabotage and so forth.”97 In the three
examples of Mt.5:39-42 we can locate the weapons of ‘false compliance’ to the commands of
the dominant, ‘feigned ignorance’ of the laws pertaining to pledging and military law and
even sabotage. As Scott notes, peasant resistance tends to form around “the material nexus of
class struggle - the appropriation of land, labor, taxes, rents and so forth.”98 In all the three
examples in our passage one can see the class struggle for appropriation of land or labour.
The imposed ‘outcaste’ and ‘untouchable’ status of the Dalits further intensifies the struggle
of the Dalits for land or labour, turning it into a complex caste-class struggle against the
dominant. There is correspondence between daily struggle of the subjugated in our passage
and that of the Dalits.
When seen through the socio-cultural and political lenses provided by Scott we will be
able to appreciate the full force of these three examples that deal with indignities and

94
Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence”, 116.
95
For Wink, Jesus suggests here “a third way, a way that is neither submission nor assault, neither flight nor
fight, a way that can secure your human dignity and begin to change the power equation, even now, before the
revolution (Italics mine, 115). But, our interpretation sees this as very much part of the revolution, as we shall
see below. Nevertheless, such a revolution basically rules out violence as all the three examples in Mt.5:38-42
as well as Mt.26:51-52 [esp. “…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (v.52)] clearly indicate.
96
Scott, Weapons of the Weak.
97
Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 29.
98
Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 33.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 15

humiliation. As Scott notes, domination and control, and their purpose, appropriation,
“unavoidably entails systematic social relations of subordination that impose indignities of
one kind or another on the weak.”99 And it is these indignities of submission, humiliation,
forced deference, and punishment that generate the anger, indignation, and frustration that
fuels resistance with passion, energy, and cunning. Therefore what we see in these three
examples in our passage is the resistance of the subjugated against the indignities imposed on
them and the hidden anger and frustration beneath it.100 The resistance of the subordinates
against indignities reflected in this passage vibes with the anger against the humiliation of
Dalits.
As Scott explains, if the public transcript involves performance by the dominant elite, then
it requires performance by the subjugated even more. What appears to be acceptance of the
dominant order by the subjugated ones may be only a ‘mask of acquiescence,’ for they do not
dare ‘speak truth to power.’ As the subordinates live constantly under the repressive power
and regular surveillance of the dominant, the subordinates learn to wear ‘masks of obedience’
while on the public stage. “The practices of domination and exploitation typically generate
the insults and slights to human dignity that in turn foster a hidden transcript of
indignation.”101 Slaves or serfs or other peasants, “subject to the same terms of subordination,
have a shared interest in jointly creating a discourse of dignity, of negation, and of justice.”102
The three examples in our passage can be seen as ‘masks of obedience and acquiescence’
with a hidden transcript of indignation against the imperial policies and practices. They can
be seen as discourse of dignity and justice when the subjugated dare not ‘speak truth to
power.’ The situation of the Dalits is not different as they also rarely come out openly against
people of the dominant varṇas. Nevertheless, the Dalits also wear ‘masks of obedience’ with
a hidden transcript and engage in discourse of dignity and justice, and finally come out as
public transcript, as Dalit liberation struggles in Kerala, such as ‘upper cloth revolt,’ ‘temple
entry movements.’103 Just as the subjugated affirm his/her self-identity and self-worth in this
passage, the Dalits also are empowered to affirm their self-identity and rights using hidden
transcripts.
Scott has thrown light on the reality of the hidden transcript which includes the emotional-
cultural dimension of subordinated people’s lives. “While the extraction of labor or grain

99
Scott. Domination, 111.
100
For explicit reference to the anger of Jesus see Sam P. Mathew, Temple - Criticism in Mark’s Gospel : The
Economic Role of the Jerusalem Temple during the First century CE (Delhi: ISPCK, 1999), 186-89; also Sam
Peedikayil Mathew, “Suffering and Pain in Dalit World and Biblical World” in Dalit World-Biblical World, 87-
89. However, it must be noted that the references to anger is missing in the parallel Mt.8:1-4 and also in Mt.
12:9-14. If Matthew is the earliest gospel, it is possible that the implicit anger in Matthew is made more explicit
and direct in Mark.
101
Scott. Domination, 7.
102
Scott. Domination, 114.
103
See above n.75. The resistance of Nangeli, a Dalit woman in Chertala, Kerala in 1803, who cut off her
breasts and offered them in a banana leaf to the officer who came to collect ‘breast tax’ (mulakkaram), must be
seen as an extreme social expression of anger and resistance of a community to the oppression of the dominant
caste people. However, some dismiss Nangeli as a legend. Even if it is a legend, there is a hidden transcript
behind the social formation of that legend.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 16

from a subordinate population has something of a generic quality to it, the shape of personal
domination is likely to be far more culturally specific and particular.”104 The three
illustrations of resistance of the subjugated assume their significance in the Jewish cultural
context of honour and shame. If fact, emotional and cultural elements are used as hidden
transcripts by the subordinates to resist the dominant and affirm their dignity and selfhood in
all the three cases. The Dalits also have used emotional and cultural resources as hidden
transcripts to affirm their dignity and freedom. This is seen in the use of the songs, festivals,
lamentations, dirges, folktales by the Dalits for their emancipation.105
In explaining how a hidden transcript develops and works, Scott observes that the
articulation of anger requires language and that resistance is social, not simply individual.
The articulation of indignation and indigenous discourse of dignity requires social space for
their cultivation. Scott explains that since “anger, humiliation, and fantasies are always
experienced within a cultural framework created in part by offstage communication among
subordinates,” a resistant subculture among subordinates is necessarily a product of
mutuality, shaped by the cultural history of one’s experience. Thus Scott insists that “the
hidden transcript is a social product and hence a result of power relations among
subordinates.”106 If a particular expression of indignation and dignity “is to become the social
property of a whole category of subordinates it must carry effective meaning for them and
reflect the cultural meanings and distribution of power among them.” “The hidden transcript
has no reality as pure thought; it exists only to the extent it is practiced, articulated, enacted,
and disseminated.”107 The Ethiopian proverb quoted by Scott best expresses this: “When the
great lord passes the wise peasant bows deeply and silently farts.” All the three examples in
our passage are to be seen as ‘discourses of dignity’ communicated by the subordinates as
part of their social resistance, not simply personal resistance, to the domination and
oppression of the economically and politically powerful.
Of the four forms of political discourse Scott identifies among subordinate groups,108 two
could be found in our passage: 1) the hidden transcript or dignity-restoring counter-ideology
that negates the dominant paradigm and expresses anger, revenge, and self-assertion; and 2)
the politics of disguise and anonymity that comprises words and actions of double meaning.
Scott explains that since
subordinate groups confront elaborate ideologies that justify inequality, bondage,
monarchy, caste, and so on … resistance to ideological domination requires a counter-
ideology - a negation - that will effectively provide a general normative form to the
host of resistant practices invented in self-defense by any subordinate group.109

104
Scott. Domination, 112.
105
For instance, the Oṇam song sung during Oṇam festival of Kerala, though assimilated to the Hindu traditions,
is believed to have originated from the Dalit communities and sung by Pulluvas in my native place (Oṇattukara)
near Kayamkulam, affirming justice and equality during the rule of the just king Maveli.
106
Scott, Domination, 119.
107
Scott, Domination, 118-19.
108
Scott, Domination, 18-19.
109
Scott, Domination, 118.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 17

All the three illustrations in our passage foster dignity-restoring counter-ideology of

nonviolent resistance that leads to resistant practices of the subordinated for their self-
defense, thereby negating the dominant paradigm of oppression and humiliation and
expresses anger and self-assertion. They are part of the politics of disguise that the subjugated
perform with double-meaning deeds. Although Dalit liberation struggle does not exist as pure
thought, their hidden transcripts negating the dominant paradigm need to be seen as dignity-
restoring counter-ideology.
Matthew 5:38-42 exhorts the subordinates to nonviolently resist the evil doer or evil deeds
and presents those who humiliate and oppress the subjugated as evil or those deeds as evil,
opposed to God and God’s purposes. Viewed through the lenses of Dalits, this passage
negates the public transcript of the dominant ideology disseminated through the Hindu
scriptures that claim that only the four castes (Brahmin, Khsatriya, Vysya and Sudra)
originated from Purusha and are divine, as discussed above,110 by projecting a counter-
ideology that the perpetrators of injustice, humiliation and oppression are evil or evil doers.
Through this passage Jesus advocates deconstruction of resistance by innovatively making
it nonviolent, as opposed to the law of violent retaliation in the Hebrew Bible, reflecting the
collective memory of the first century CE Palestine peasants,111 making it possible for the
transformation of the dominant who oppress and humiliate the subordinates as well as
liberation of the subjugated. Thus, insights from James Scott’s works have helped us
understand Mt.5:38-42 as teaching active nonviolent resistance, which is a social and
disguised political act of the oppressed and subjugated ones, using their emotional and
cultural resources, as part of the revolutionary love initiated by Jesus movement.

IV Implications for Biblical Hermeneutics, Christian Theology and Praxis

1. Biblical Hermeneutics
This study has stressed the need for foregrounding the socio-political experiences of the
reader in biblical interpretation. Neglect of these would be disastrous, resulting in the
negation of the content of Biblical text, as Scott cites the experience of Charles Jones, who
preached to slaves in the South US in 1833, who noted that “When they could safely boycott
or leave sermons that condemned theft, flight, negligent work, and insolence, the slaves did
just that….”112 When he preached to a large congregation of slaves on the Epistle of
Philemon and “insisted upon fidelity and obedience as Christian virtues in servants and upon
the authority of Paul, condemned the practice of running away,” one half of his audience

110
See above p.2, n.3.
111
R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San
Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 45, 50 has given many examples of nonviolent resistance of the peasants.
See also Ant. 20. 98; 20.171. Russian Philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept that voices spoken are never
independently or authentically derived from one person, but contain the echoes of many voices in a single
statement, is helpful to understand the voice of Jesus in this text. See Mikhail Bakhtin, “Discourse in the
Novel,” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. M. Holquist and C. Emerson (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1981), 259–422. For Bakhtin also, “verbal discourse is a social phenomenon.”(259)
112
Albert Raboteau, Slave Religion: The ''Invisible Institution" of the Antebellum South (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1978), 294; cited in Scott, Domination, 116.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 18

deliberately rose up and walked off and some declared “there was no such an Epistle in the
Bible,” others “that they did not care.”113 Therefore any attempt to interpret the Biblical text
to the subjugated and the oppressed without considering their needs and interests, reading the
Bible for them with all the critical tools - be it historical critical or literary critical or a
combination of all these - instead of reading the Bible with them, will be a futile exercise.
Although the starting point is the context of the reader, it is important to be conscious of the
hermeneutical circle in interpretation that challenges to continually revise interpretations
according to the changing contexts, as Segundo points out, “it is the continuing change in our
interpretation of the Bible which is dictated by the continuing change in our present-day
reality, both individual and societal.”114
This study has shown the need for applying the hermeneutics of suspicion not only to the
biblical texts and interpreters, but also to vernacular translators, as some biblical texts contain
the ideology of the dominant and the biblical interpreters predominantly share the interests of
the dominant, as we have seen in the dissemination and interpretation of our text from the
post-Constantine times. Application of hermeneutics of retrieval to the text for identifying the
liberative elements in the text as well as to the sources and resources available in the Dalit
context is found to be fruitful. As hermeneutics of deconstruction is at work in the text itself,
that can be employed as a powerful hermeneutical tool in Dalit interpretation to resist
dominant ideologies and paradigms. I submit that this study has found Hermeneutics of
Resistance as a powerful tool to interpret certain biblical texts and such a tool is firmly
grounded on the centre of Hebrew religion, the Exodus event and the prophetic traditions115as
well as the life and practice of Jesus.

2. Theology and Praxis

a) Ecclesiology
As Vinayaraj observes, “Dalits is a discourse through which they re-imagine as social
agents in a democratic society; rather than ‘victims.’”116 Effective liberation struggle of the
Dalits is possible only when the agency of the suffering and the oppressed ones comes into
action. Dalit bodies themselves can become the sites of liberation if resistance is
communicated creatively through them and in them. Just as the subjugated are presented as
social agents, who use their trampled and insulted bodies as tools of nonviolent resistance,
Dalits can become agents of social change in their journey towards a life of dignity, freedom
and justice, as envisioned in the reign of God.
b) Concept of Evil
Jesus’ teaching in our passage has named the dominant forces that humiliate and oppress
the subjugated as evil or evil doers. This provides us the insight that in Dalit liberation
struggle those who are responsible for the oppression and exploitation of the underprivileged
113
Scott, Domination, 116.
114
Juan L. Segundo, The Liberation of Theology, trans. J. Drury (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1976), 8.
115
Jesurathnam, Dalit Liberative Hermeneutics, 262-63 has proposed a ‘Hermeneutics of Protest and Action’
based on his Dalit interpretation of Psalm 22.
116
Vinayaraj, Re-imagining Dalit Theology, 29.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 19

and marginalized need to be identified, named as evil - those opposed to God and God’
purposes both in church and society as well - and resisted with all the resources available to
them. All social, economic and political oppression of the subjugated at the personal and
social level are to be interpreted as manifestations of evil.
c) Christology
We have seen that all the three examples in our passage are expressions of implicit anger
and indignation of the subjugated through their hidden transcripts and politics of disguise,
wearing masks of acquiescence. Though Jesus’ anger and indignation at the injustice and
oppression of the powerless and the marginalsied are well attested in the gospels,117 mainline
Christian Theology and practice either ignored it or rejected that Christology and projected a
passive, submissive and apolitical Christ. Resistance and conflict with the oppressive powers
are inevitable, as K. C. Abraham has asserted, quoting Jesus’ words in Mt.10:34: “I have not
come to bring peace but a sword,” that the demands of the reign of God creates conflict.118
This passage gives us the impetus to revise our Christology to include the resisting and
dissenting Jesus, who protests against injustice and exploitation of the poor, the powerless
and the marginalized, motivated by revolutionary love for the subjugated as well as the
dominant, as Che Guevara says, “…a true revolutionary is led by great feelings of love.”119
d) Christian Practice
Our passage beckons the Dalits to stand up for their liberation, affirming their identity,
selfhood and rights, resisting and negating imposed identities and indignities in the midst of
humiliation and oppression they face every day in church and society. It calls for a resistant
spirituality to combat the forces of indignity and oppression. In Nairobi WCC Assembly M.
M. Thomas stressed the need for a ‘spirituality for combat’ in the struggle against structural
evil.120 We need to discover and decode hidden transcripts of resistance and public transcripts
of domination existing in our context to expose injustice and oppression and resist them
innovatively, on the one hand and invent new hidden transcripts to formulate counter-
ideologies that affirm dignity and justice in keeping with the values of the gospel, on the
other. The sources and resources available in our context, especially the resistant and dissent
traditions and movements in our context need to be explored and utilized for the liberation of
the subjugated. For instance, Buddhist traditions provide new insights for innovatively
creating nonviolent resistance strategies121 and formulating counter-ideologies that affirm the
values of justice and peace and dissent with the dominant traditions and their custodians who
deny dignity and justice, especially to the Dalits.122

117
See for example, Mathew, Temple-Criticism, 185-89.
118
K. C. Abraham, Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission (Tiruvalla: CSS, 1996), 87.
119
Quoted from Obras Completas II, 1924 in J. M. Bonino, Christians and Marxists. The Mutual Challenge to
Revoluiton (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1976), 77 cited in B. Wielenga, Introduction to Marxism
(Bangalore: Centre for Social Action, 1984), 354.
120
M. M. Thomas, Religion and Revolt of the Oppressed (Delhi: ISPCK, 1981), 68.
121
Bodhidharma, a legendary Indian Buddhist monk, who went to China in 527 CE, is considered as the founder
of Shaolin Kung Fu, a nonviolent martial arts for self-defense. https://www.laugar-kungfu.com/style-origin.
122
See Mathew, Method and Message, 228-63 for the correspondences between the Christ and the Buddha in
their dissent traditions.
 Work in progress…, please do not quote. 20

Conclusion
Thus, this study has shown that the translation of the Mt.5:39a is incorrect in most English
and Indian vernacular translations due to the mistranslation of the verb ‘avntisth/nai’, which
actually means ‘to violently resist.’ The immediate and the wider contexts of Mt.5:38-42 also
point to the fact that as nonviolent resistance is an important theme in the life and practice of
Jesus, v.39a is to be translated as, “Do not violently resist the evil doer.” A careful
examination of the socio-cultural and political dynamics reflected in the passage, using
insights from James Scott and adopting a Dalit perspective, has found that all the three
examples in this passage clearly indicate the nature of resistance against the dominant who
humiliate and oppress the subjugated. It was found that the subordinates play politics of
disguise, employing hidden transcripts of indignation and anger, wearing masks of obedience
to resist against indignity, humiliation and oppression they face every day in order to foster
dignity-restoring counter-ideology that promotes justice to them.
In the case of some biblical texts, such as Mt.5:38-42, only a reader-centred or an ‘in-
front-of’ the text perspectival reading supplemented with tools for decoding power relations
in the text can produce meaningful and contextually relevant interpretation of the biblical
text. Dalit hermeneutical tools, such as experience, suspicion, retrieval, deconstruction,
liberation, identity and empowerment are fruitfully used for the interpretation of this passage.
To these tools hermeneutics of resistance may be added. As Jesus does not give us rules to be
followed literally but examples to formulate contextually relevant creative responses in new
situations, we need discernment to find God’s will in changing circumstances. However,
Jesus’ teaching in this passage motivates Dalits to re-vision their ecclesiology, in which
Dalits can be seen as agents of change through their resistance, rather than victims. Grounded
on a Christ, who is angry at injustice and indignity due to his love for all, it provides Dalits
the courage to name the dominant oppressive caste forces in the church and society as evil
and protest against them. Jesus in this passage gives Dalits the clarion call to muster courage
to resist against all forces of injustice and oppression, promoting a resistant and
compassionate spirituality, motivated by love for the subjugated as well as the dominant,
affirming justice, dignity and freedom for all by using all the emotional and cultural resources
available to them.

Prof. Dr. Sam Peedikayil Mathew

Professor of New Testament, UTC
Sep.1, 2021