One of the tougher notions in biblical ethics is finding out when violence is just. I want to explore a few contradictory texts that are hard to square and offer some guidance on how to understand them. “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth . . . ,” which is a text Jesus addresses in his sermon on the mount while shortly after also dealing with the saying “love your neighbor but hate your enemy.” Since Jesus will go on to lay out the guidance that we should love our enemies, there are at least three big takeaways on this OT text:

(1) This OT text is designed to be prohibitory, preventing the first eye from being harmed. This is much like how parents lay out harsh consequences for some action on their kids: it is not that the parents are bloodthirsty wanting their kids to suffer the consequence; no, instead, the parents’ harsh consequences are born from love, placing a consequence severe enough that the child will think hard before acting. This OT text is primary about the first eye, not the second. The emphasis had shifted to being about the second eye, which misses the point of the OT prohibition: it was designed to have no eyes lost at all. It should not be missed that Jesus’ examples of non-retaliation involve the person harmed and the immediate response being helpful not harmful. The other larger interpretative consideration is that the punishment was suppose to be part of some judicial proceeding: the OT law largely functions around judges. I am not ready to say that there is no place for personal retribution since the OT also lays out rules for the “avenger of blood,” who was usually a family member of the person killed.

(2) The second point that should be made based on Matt. 5:21 ff and Matt. 7:1. Both these texts point out the insufficiency of human judgement while underlining the severity of God’s judgement. When I pair these together, Jesus’ teaching highlights that human retaliation is not severe enough and that humans’ abilities to judge rightly is dubious. We find a similar pattern in Romans 12 and 13, in which God states, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” and then we learn just a hand-full of verses later that a person working in the government is an agent of deploying God’s wrath. There is the flat out intuition that many crimes (multi-homicide, sex slavery, etc.) will not get justice for the victims simply because human life-spans are too short. Hence, vengeance better be God’s or else the entire notion of justice may as well be dissolved. The implication is that God’s judgment is more severe because He has tools to punish beyond the scope of limited human life-spans.

We must remind ourselves that Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 5 – 7 cannot be a removal or dismissal of the OT law since Jesus begins his sermon by noting that not one stroke of that law will be removed until the end, and anyone who teaches to annul the law will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Although what we are saying does not provide a carte blanc permission to take vengeance in the immediate context, the orderly and God centric society will punish all eye-taking. Jesus’ instruction on how to behave in the immediate context of the event is both preventative from violence spiraling out of control and could even be interpreted to be crafty.

(3) Let us consider an interpretative principle now and then we will turn to a macro-look on the saga of God and this world. In Islam, they practice the principle of abrogation, which is the interpretative practice of understanding older verses to be abrogated and replaced with newer verses. This substitutes the earlier teaching for the later teaching and does not try to uphold both or reconcile them. In some circles of Christianity–based on my experience in Catholic, Charismatic, Baptist, Methodists, Reformed, and non-denomination congregations–the sentiment often found is that the “Christian position” on retribution or other contexts that may call for a violent response is “turn the other cheek.” This is guilty of using an Islamic interpretative principle (abrogation); even what I have laid out in only the most cursory sort of way already shows that there are many other Scriptures that call for a different response than “turn the other cheek.” Why would Matthew 5-7 have the final say on what the Christian response should be? Even later in the New Testament, we find “whoever will not work neither shall they eat.” This does not square with Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 5 – 7 where He says whoever begs of you do not withhold.

What is especially amazing is that Jesus in Matthew 5 straight up informs us that He is not nullifying whatever the OT states. Eye for an eye, retribution, punitive damages needing to be repaid four fold, avenger of blood. We can likewise add to this God’s punishment of humanity in cursing them (Gen 3) and then killing everyone except Noah and family (Gen. 6). We could add genocide (God instructs Israel to do so) and a whole litany of God, using His people, to repay, strike down, and otherwise punish those who withstood God’s purposes. However we understand Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” we must understand it without abrogating all I have listed here; Jesus tells us not to understand those words without the OT teaching standing:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5:17 ff.).” 

Addressing an Objection

We should address this objection: since Jesus fulfilled the law (including its call for wrath on evildoers), we Christians no longer need to do so. Firstly, this sounds awfully a lot like trying to sidestep what Jesus said not to sidestep, i.e., not to abolish one stoke of the pen of the Law and the Prophets. This logic makes sense on the cosmic scale, viz., God’s wrath or retribution against ongoing evil and death was poured out on Jesus so those consequences, designed as they are to eliminate all evil and death, need not be poured out on those accepting Jesus as their Atonement (atonement means protective covering). This logic addresses the eternal or age-long view of the relationship between God, humans, and evil; this logic has implications and certain applications in this present existence in which we find ourselves, mired in a mix of good and evil, but it certainly does not fix the world or provide a basis for a just society now. Without letting other New Testament texts, the Law, and the Prophets inform how we go about living in this current cursed world, we most certainly have little hope of providing any stable society and the Christian ethos will be undesirable because of its rather unsophisticated take on handling evil performed in society. The tragedy in this is that letting other NT texts, the Law, and the Prophets inform a Christian ethos makes Christianity abundantly respectable and applicable. I want to say a bit more on this, but let’s broader the picture by addressing how judgement should happen in a thoughtful Christian, who is caring about all the pages of Scripture.

Addressing Judging in the light of “Judge not.”

We can most certainly “judge not,” which in the Luke version of this text uses the Greek word katakrino which translates “condemn not,” while still judging to put in place punishment and retribution in this world. Let me say it stronger: we cannot follow many of the commands of God without executing discernment, which is precisely executing judgement. By the same standard in which we judge will we be judged: the eternal destinies of humans is God’s prerogative of judgement alone, so let us “not condemn so that we will not be condemned.” What is the alternative then? We must utilize God’s judgement on how to handle evils performed in the world, He has judged it and offered guidance on how to handle it, and we must follow it or forage our own path, erecting a judgement framework we will later be judged by. While I believe that Jesus’ statement to “judge not” speaks most directly to placing a prohibition on us decidedly judging someone to be going to heaven or hell, I nevertheless believe this is nearly as much about prohibiting the arrogant human behavior of constructing their own morality, law, and judgement framework. We should attune our discernment to God’s Law and let it judge, and then we merely echo His ways or suppress God’s Law by creating our own. When I judge according to God’s Law, I am only stating that I agree with God’s judgement on this matter: as James said, there is only One Judge, one Lawgiver, and all the world are actors dancing to this tune or refusing to do so.

Judgement and how Severe Judgement should be

Returning to the idea that human judgement is not sufficient, we should quickly add that God showed the severity of His judgement by pouring His wrath on His Son. This is propitiation, the satisfaction of God’s wrath. An infinite good–I.e., God’s nature as analogously exemplified in human nature and God’s commands–requires an infinite satisfaction. To dishonor He who is infinite is to put in place an endless blackhole which forever sucks in this infinite honor that cannot be drained. Jesus fulfills the OT law by providing atonement (covering over) for evils and satisfying the punishment required of those evils. This is the ultimate sacrifice that atones for the evils of the world, and certainly does free believers to turn the other cheek. The evil of being struck on the cheek is either going to end up forgiven and covered by Jesus getting flayed and slayed, or the assaulter will pay and suffer retribution from God in hell. Why am I laying all this out? It is because the larger theological impact of the Gospel makes sense of turning the other cheek, but it may not be required and may even be inappropriate in some circumstances. A good case can be made that much of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5 – 7) is wisdom literature, which is like Proverbs, and offers generally guidance but is not a rule to be applied at all times. Later in Lk. 22:36, Jesus tells His disciples to buy swords, with the presumed implication being they are to use them to protect themselves. This observation is a well know countermove to those who want to push pacifism as the net outcome of Jesus’ teaching. The larger Jesus teaching and behavior, however, might make him look like a hypocrite if pacifism was the final and sole conclusion from Jesus’ teachings.

The Revelation-Jesus vs. the Earthly-Ministry Jesus

Although not attributed as much authority as the Gospel texts, Jesus’ behavior and example in Revelation makes for a poignant contrast with the Sermon on the Mount. If we are fair minded interpreters of Scripture, we will not place more authority on certain texts while undervaluing others. This is called having a canon within the canon, and few are honest enough to admit it. The careful observer would push us to think even harder about preferential treatment of certain texts: is a human ever capable of valuing texts all the same across all Scripture? The point, not to be missed, is that humans cannot escape the sequential ordering of ideas, which poses the notorious problem of “a certain idea being the first” even if all else were equal. This is a limitation proper to humans and inescapable. What if we assumed that the “risen Christ’s words” were more important than Christ before his death and resurrection? I am not at all confident that we shouldn’t assume this. Is it a secret influence of secular humanism that makes us modern ears presume the earthly (before death and resurrection) Christ’s words are more significant than the words of Christ in Revelation. According to Philippians, Jesus emptied Himself of his godly prerogatives–I could say so much on this, but we must move forward–which is evinced during His earthly ministry in a variety of ways, but the best case in point is that Jesus notes He doesn’t know the time of His return, only the Father does. It is an easy assumption to suppose Jesus after His resurrection and ascension was “re-filled” with His godly prerogatives, with all that which is proper to the living Logos, the 2nd Person of the Trinity. This is not to say that the Logos’ mode of being has not been altered from prior to His resurrection–again I could write a whole treatise on this, but let’s move on. My point in all this is to say that perhaps the words and behavior of Jesus in Revelation should be taken as more authoritative based on its abundance of “re-filled” glory this Jesus represents. It does follow what Scripture outlays in its very narrative about Jesus as the pre-incarnated Logos, incarnated, resurrected and ascended Jesus. We have come full circle to why Jesus may look like a hypocrite if we put Revelation-Jesus up against earthly-ministry-Jesus. We find in Revelation that Jesus is an Avenger of blood (Rev. 6:11, 2:23); how does this square with “turn the other cheek” Jesus? It is striking that in Rev. 2:23, Jesus’ threat entails the offspring of transgressors: “And I will kill her children with pestilence and all the churches will know I am He who searches the minds and hearts . . . .” What if we say that ascended Jesus’ words should be weighed more heavily since He is “refilled” at this point with all that was limited and contained during His earthly ministry? What we find is a strange agreement with much of the OT teaching, and hence the bulk of the Bible, while complicating how to take a small amount of words spoken by Jesus during His earthly ministry.

Addressing the Heart Condition of Vengeance Seeking

Let’s talk about heart condition of a person seeking vengeance. If God can offer forgiveness to those to whom He presently sees as “objects of wrath,” is the same heart attitude required of His followers? Is it possible to say, “forgiveness stands at the door and knocks” while also saying that I will take vengeance against you someday if you do not open the door? It is a silly question: of course, this must be possible if Jesus is suppose to be both Judge and Atonement, both Lord and Savior. Why, then, cannot this same heart condition be fashioned in Christ’s faithful servants? To proclaim the message that forgiveness is available to the very persons who are also viewed as being rightfully put to death, to have vengeance enacted upon them, is not outside of human ability and may indeed be required by Christ’s faithful. This is full of abundant love too, do not miss it. To be sure, it is not the bleeding heart, feel-good love, which may not be love at all in the final analysis. Love entails the furthering of the freedom in the object of love; obviously, death and evil are the antithesis of freedom because when someone is dead, this person’s freedom is effectively nil. God annihilates the sinner, either putting to death this person through forgiveness or assigning this person to annihilating hell. Evil must be eradicated, and hence all who perpetuate the killing influence of evil must be eliminated. Therefore, the desire for someone to be forgiven is not far afield from the desire to see vengeance enacted upon this same person. In both desires, the same goal is targeted: i.e., the elimination of this person’s slavery to sin and his continued performance of evil. Perhaps we can put this into a scale of goods. Should the sinner repent, this is the most replete good, redounding to the benefit of the sinner and all others (forgiveness) while non-repentance produces good for all others except for the sinner (vengeance).

My Thoughts . . . for now.

Dr. Scalise