Matthew 5:38-42 - Detecting the Errors, Part 1

There are two things that might make Rob Bell’s interpretation fascinating. First, no one has ever heard it before. That should always be a huge red flag. I've said it before, I'll keep saying it, what are the odds that in the 2000 year history of the church someone in Michigan c.2006 is the first person to have come up with the correct interpretation of this passage? It is as arrogant as it is crazy. In effect, to espouse such an innovative interpretation is to say that Augustine got it wrong. Athanasius got it wrong. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Schaeffer, Grudem, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper - all got it wrong! But not Rob Bell. Second, this interpretation is fascinating and attractive because it brings in all this extra-biblical information about 1st century Jewish culture. What we have to keep in mind with that kind of thing is that it doesn't matter if every history book in the world says the same thing, if a piece of historical information leads to an interpretation that simply is not allowed by the text, then the historical information is suspect, not the Holy Scriptures. And that is precisely what we have in this case. In order for Rob Bell's interpretation to be valid, the rest of the Sermon on the Mount must be either thrown out or rewritten. And actually, much of the rest of the NT becomes obsolete because what Bell has proposed here is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Scriptures.

I want to you to hear me very clearly once again: Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan is a false teacher. I may sound like a broken record, but somebody has to. There is a pervasive unwillingness in the pulpits of the modern church to call a spade a spade. I’ll not be found guilty of looking the other way as a wolf snatches and scatters the sheep. His handling of the passage we are looking at is indicative of his recklessness with the Word, a recklessness that has led him to espouse a host of heretical positions.

But, friends, stick to the text, be a slave to the text, and you will not fall prey to the false teachings of all the wolves on the prowl out there. Learn to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

So, let’s look at the specifics. There is so much to say here I almost don’t know where to begin. But we’ll start with the text itself, then look at the context. If you have not read my last post, now would be a good time to do that since most of what follows won’t make any sense otherwise.

Bell’s interpretation has problems from the very beginning – v.38: “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. And yet, Bell’s interpretation could be summed up in the statement, “Here’s how to resist an evil person.” He has made this passage mean precisely the opposite of what it says. Here is a rule of thumb that should be so obvious it is ridiculous to even put it in writing: any time a teacher proposes an interpretation that flips the plain meaning of the text on its head, discount whatever he says.

Things don’t get better for Bell as we move forward – v.39b: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” He claims that because it would be improper to use the bathroom hand (left hand) to slap someone, this first slap must be a backhand slap with the right hand. He further claims that the victim’s turning the other cheek to the attacker would force the attacker to hit him with a closed fist, and thereby treat the victim as an equal.

This logic has several holes. First, the attacker could simply give an open-handed slap with the palm to the left cheek. Second, since the Romans had such a disdain for the Jews, there is no reason to think that the Romans would have had any qualms about using their bathroom hands to slap the Jews. Third, if the Romans were so prone to gratuitous violence, it is not likely that they would have allowed a lowly Jew to force them to treat the Jews like equals. Fourth, Bell would have us believe that these masters of brutality have only two ways to hurt people: a backhand and a punch.

What does the text say? “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Couple that with the first half of the verse – “Do not resist an evil person” – and what do you have? You have a verse that tells you not to resist an evil person - when he strikes your right cheek, let him slap the other also. Just read the text, Rob.

Verse 40: "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Bell says that this verse is a command to get completely naked and thereby shame the oppressor into treating you like an equal. He sites Gen 9:20-25, where Noah’s son Ham sees him naked and is cursed. Bell extrapolates from this that it was more shameful in the Jewish culture to see someone naked than to be seen naked.

There are a couple of problems with this. Huge problems. First, the idea that nakedness was a shame to the viewer and not the naked person doesn't work with the whole counsel of Scripture. While it is true that it was definitely not a good thing to look at another person naked, there is even more biblical evidence that shame was more closely associated with one's own nakedness. Adam and Eve hid themselves from God because they were ashamed by their own nakedness. In Deut. 28:48, as God is outlining the consequences of disobedience, one of the things listed is slavery to the enemy in hunger, thirst, and nakedness; that is, nakedness would be a curse for their own sinfulness. Likewise, Is. 47:3 says 'your nakedness will be uncovered and your shame will be exposed.' There are numerous similar examples. To say that becoming nude in front of someone would put you in a position of power over them is just wrong. To become naked was not a power play but a cause for shame.

Second, Bell assumes that what was true of Jewish culture was also true of the Romans. But even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Roman culture exposes this as ludicrous. This was a culture known for their manifold public bath houses in which men soaked together both nude and partially nude while discussing business. Also, the Romans, who perfected crucifixion, routinely crucified their victims completely nude on crosses positioned right along the major thoroughfares. And don’t forget the ancient Roman art rife with images of the naked body. These were people who had no problem whatsoever with nudity. But Rob Bell wants us to believe that a Jew could so shame a Roman by getting naked in front of them that the Roman would be forced to treat them as an equal? Please.

Again, what does the text say? “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now jump back to v.39a: “Do not resist an evil person.” Put them together and what do you have? Do not resist an evil person – if he wants to take your shirt, give him your coat also. Friends, there are undoubtedly some things that Jesus said during His time here that are very difficult to understand, but these are not them. This is as straightforward as it gets.

There is still so much to cover and this post is getting pretty long, so I’m going to have to break this up. But keep looking at the passage. Check out v.41 and search for why Bell’s interpretation won’t work. Also, look at v.42, which Bell omitted, and determine why it was far more convenient for him to ignore it than to face it.

Look at the larger context, too – the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. Does Bell’s interpretation fit? And does Bell’s interpretation match the example set for us by Jesus?