The Man Who Argued We Had Mistranslated Jesus for Two Thousand Years

In our previous discussion, I made a claim that I now intend to support: the middle path we identified in Romans 13, between passive compliance and violent rebellion, is not a recent interpretation imposed on an ancient text.

Rather, I would suggest that this approach reflects what Jesus himself taught. In the twentieth century, Walter Wink played a significant role in bringing this teaching back to the forefront of Christian thought.

Before we move on to critically examine Wink’s arguments, it is important that we first understand his position as he presents it. It is often tempting to summarize an argument simply to refute it, but a more honest approach is to present it in its strongest form.

Therefore, in this article, we will focus on clearly and fairly outlining Wink’s perspective. We will reserve our critical analysis for the following discussion.

Who Walter Wink Was

Walter Wink was an American biblical scholar, theologian, and activist. He taught for much of his career at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City.

In 1989 and 1990, he served as a Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and throughout his life, he was a tireless advocate of nonviolent resistance, both as a scholar and as a participant in real movements for justice.

He is best known for his sprawling and influential Powers trilogy, three dense books, Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, and Engaging the Powers, in which he developed a sweeping account of the spiritual and institutional forces that shape human life.

The work most relevant to our discussion is Wink’s concise book, Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way. This volume distills his broader scholarship into a focused argument.

In it, Wink contends that the church has misunderstood several of Jesus’s most well-known teachings for nearly two thousand years. His central claim is that these teachings were not intended as instructions for passive acceptance, but rather as a call to a form of nonviolent resistance that is both creative and determined.

The Problem Wink Refused to Ignore

Wink begins his analysis by identifying the harm resulting from traditional interpretations of these teachings. He first turns to the familiar sayings themselves, since that is where the problem begins.

For many centuries, three of Jesus’s most familiar sayings have often been interpreted as instructions to surrender. The phrase “turn the other cheek” is commonly understood as a directive to accept mistreatment without objection. “Resist not evil” has been read as a prohibition against any form of opposition to wrongdoing. Similarly, “go the second mile” is frequently reduced to a general encouragement to be overly accommodating.

According to Wink, these interpretations have contributed to a version of Christianity that appears passive in the face of injustice, encouraging the oppressed to accept their suffering rather than challenge it.

Wink found this interpretation deeply problematic. He reasoned that if Jesus truly intended these teachings to promote passivity, then Christian ethics would have functioned for centuries as a means of maintaining the status quo, benefiting those in power while silencing those without it.

However, Wink did not believe this was consistent with the actions and message of Jesus, who challenged authority and ultimately suffered execution by the Romans. Instead, Wink argued that the issue lies not with Jesus’s teachings themselves, but with the way they have been translated and understood.

His point is that these verses should support active, nonviolent resistance rather than passivity. He focused his analysis on four verses in Matthew 5:38–41, believing that a careful reading could recover their original intent.

The Mistranslation at the Heart of It All

Wink’s argument begins with a close examination of a single Greek word. In the King James Version, Jesus is quoted as saying, “resist not evil.” The Greek term translated as “resist” is antistenai, and Wink contends that this word has been seriously mistranslated. In this discussion, “resist” refers to opposing evil, not merely disagreeing with it.

He analyzes the word’s components: anti, meaning “against,” and a form of histemi, meaning “to stand.” However, Wink notes that this is not a general term for opposition or disagreement. In its noun form, stasis, it refers specifically to violent rebellion or armed revolt.

Wink supports this by pointing to its usage in the Greek Old Testament, where it frequently appears in military contexts, and in the New Testament, where it describes figures such as Barabbas, an insurrectionist, and a mob in Ephesus. Thus, the term is closely associated with violent resistance.

Therefore, Wink concludes that Jesus’s instruction should not be understood as a general prohibition against resistance. Instead, it is more accurately rendered as, “do not resist evil with violence.” In other words, Jesus is not forbidding opposition to evil, but rather the use of violent means to oppose it.

The Scholars Version, which Wink endorses, translates the phrase as, “don’t react violently against the one who is evil.” According to this interpretation, Jesus and the anti-Roman revolutionaries of his time both opposed evil, but they differed in their methods. Jesus rejected violence as the appropriate response, and that rejection is the heart of Wink’s reading.

Wink goes on to argue that this mistranslation may not have been accidental. He observes that the translators of the King James Version were working under King James I, who had a vested interest in discouraging resistance to royal authority.

By translating antistenai as a general prohibition against all forms of resistance, the text could be used to support absolute monarchy and encourage unquestioning submission to rulers. Wink suggests that, whether intentional or not, this translation ultimately served the interests of those in power and distorted Jesus’ original message.

Based on this analysis, Wink develops his central thesis. He notes that, historically, people have tended to respond to evil in one of two ways: either by submitting passively or by resorting to violence. Wink argues that Jesus offered a third alternative: active, nonviolent resistance.

He identifies three examples from the Gospels that illustrate this approach and show how the third way works in practice.

The First Scene: Turning the Other Cheek

Wink’s most well-known argument centers on a detail that is often overlooked. He begins with Jesus’s instruction to turn the other cheek.

Wink asks why Jesus specifies the right cheek in the phrase, “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek.” He points out that in a predominantly right-handed society, a blow with the right fist would naturally land on the left cheek. To strike the right cheek, a right-handed person would need to use the back of their hand. This detail, according to Wink, is significant for understanding the social context of the teaching.

Wink explains that a backhanded blow carried a specific social meaning in the ancient world. It was not intended primarily to cause physical harm, but rather to insult and assert dominance. Such a blow was typically delivered by someone in a position of authority to someone of lower status, such as a master to a slave or a Roman to a Jew.

Wink cites the Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic law, which distinguishes between the penalties for different types of blows. A fist carried a fine, but a backhanded blow, considered a greater insult, resulted in a higher penalty. Striking a social inferior, however, often carried little or no penalty. In this context, the backhanded blow functioned as a tool of social control.

With this context in mind, Jesus’s instruction to “turn the other cheek” takes on new significance. He is addressing those who are subject to humiliation and domination. Wink interprets this command as a form of nonviolent resistance.

By turning the left cheek, the victim prevents the aggressor from delivering another backhanded blow, since the right hand cannot easily reach the left cheek in this manner. The aggressor must then choose either to strike with a fist, which was reserved for equals, or to refrain from further violence.

In either case, the dynamic of humiliation is disrupted, and the victim asserts their dignity without resorting to violence.

The Second Scene: Giving Up the Cloak

Wink’s second illustration moves from the road to the courtroom, and it draws on the economics of poverty in first-century Palestine. To see the force of the command, he first sets out the legal background.

The background is a law in Deuteronomy 24. If a poor man pledged his outer garment, his cloak, as security for a loan, the creditor was required to return it every evening at sunset, because for the very poor that cloak was also their only blanket, the one thing between them and the cold night.

Wink sets the scene that his hearers would have recognized instantly. A destitute debtor has been hauled into court by a creditor determined to seize the last thing he owns, the very garment off his back. In this passage, “cloak” refers to the outer garment, and “garment” names the clothing at issue in the dispute.

Jesus’s instruction, according to Wink, is that if someone sues you for your outer garment, you should give them your inner garment as well. Wink interprets this as a directive to surrender all clothing, leaving the debtor naked.

In the cultural context of ancient Judaism, the shame associated with nakedness was placed not on the person who was naked, but on those who caused or witnessed the nakedness. This idea can be traced back to the story of Noah in Genesis 9.

By following Jesus’s instruction, the debtor not only highlights his own vulnerability but also exposes the injustice and greed of the creditor and the broader legal system. In this way, the act becomes a public demonstration against exploitation.

The Third Scene: Going the Second Mile

Wink’s third example takes us to the roads of occupied Judea and the everyday humiliation of foreign military rule. In this scene, the key term is “second mile,” which refers to the additional distance a soldier could compel someone to carry a load. Wink treats this as another case in which Jesus gives the oppressed a nonviolent way to respond. Here, he focuses on the obligation imposed on civilians.

Roman soldiers, Wink explains, had the legal right to compel civilians in occupied territory to carry their equipment, a practice known as angaria. But the right had a limit.

A soldier could compel a civilian to carry his pack for one mile, and, Wink says, only one mile, with real military penalties for a soldier who forced someone to go further. We glimpse the practice in the Gospels themselves, when Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry Jesus’s cross.

Thus, when Jesus instructs, “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two,” Wink interprets this as another example of nonviolent resistance. The Roman soldier would expect the civilian to comply only as far as the law required.

By voluntarily continuing for a second mile, the civilian disrupts the expected power dynamic. The soldier, now at risk of violating military regulations, is placed in an uncomfortable position. In this scenario, the civilian asserts agency and challenges the oppressor’s authority without resorting to violence.

The Anatomy of the Third Way

After presenting these three examples, Wink summarizes what he calls Jesus’s third way. Rather than choosing between submission and violence, this approach seeks a creative and nonviolent alternative. It allows the oppressed to assert their dignity and humanity, challenges unjust systems, and disrupts established power dynamics.

This method encourages the oppressed to recognize their own agency, even if it involves accepting suffering for the sake of justice. Ultimately, it calls for a rejection of fear and a willingness to confront injustice without resorting to violence.

For Wink, this approach represents the core of the gospel’s political message. He maintains that it is not simply an interesting interpretation, but a moral and political imperative for the church in every era.

Wink draws connections to modern examples of nonviolent resistance, such as the civil rights movement in the United States, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and the Solidarity movement in Poland.

He argues, based on historical evidence, that nonviolent movements have often resulted in fewer casualties and more enduring change than violent revolutions. In Wink’s view, the third way is both effective and faithful to Jesus’s teachings.

Wink on Romans 13

Wink did not ignore Romans 13. He addressed it directly, and his treatment dovetails with everything we have already seen in this series.

Wink argues that submission to authority does not equate to unquestioning obedience. He points to Jesus’s own life as an example: while Jesus was generally obedient to his parents, he was also willing to refuse requests when necessary.

Submission, therefore, is not the same as unconditional compliance. Wink further notes that the verbs Paul uses for “resist” in Romans 13:2, antitassomai and anthistemi, are related to the same military terms discussed earlier in connection with Matthew 5:39.

Based on this, Wink concludes that Romans 13 prohibits armed rebellion, but not the kind of nonviolent resistance that Jesus exemplified. In this interpretation, Paul and Jesus are in agreement: both reject violence, but neither forbids resistance altogether.

Wink also drew a striking contrast between two chapters, citing Allan Boesak. Romans 13, he noted, describes how government ought to be, a servant of God for the good.

Revelation 13, with its blaspheming beast, describes how government ought not to be, power turned demonic. And even under such an apostate, beastly government, Wink insisted, Christians are not released into either passivity or violence. They are called to keep struggling, nonviolently, in the third way.

Holding the Vision Before We Test It

Wink’s argument is both compelling and thought-provoking. He reinterprets teachings that have often been used to justify passivity, suggesting instead that they were originally intended to empower the oppressed.

By offering an alternative to both submission and violence, Wink identifies a path that has inspired real movements and brought about meaningful change. Many have found encouragement and strength in this interpretation, and it is important to recognize its significance.

However, it is important to remember that a persuasive argument must also be supported by evidence. Wink’s interpretation relies on a number of specific historical claims, including details about social customs, legal penalties, and the meanings of particular Greek words.

The next step is to examine whether these claims withstand careful scholarly scrutiny. Some may be well supported, while others may not. There may also be significant omissions that need to be addressed. This critical evaluation will be the focus of our next discussion.

This article is part of a series exploring Romans 13.
Part 1: How Romans 13 Became a Method of Control, and What the Rest of Scripture Says Back – The Curious Christian
Part 2: Why Context Changes Almost Everything About Romans 13 – The Curious Christian
Part 3: Paul, His Scars, and the Subversive Reading of Romans 13 – The Curious Christian