God’s moral nature doesn’t change. No one here is arguing that. But how God governs His covenant people absolutely does, and the New Testament is explicit about that. Hebrews doesn’t hedge when it says that by establishing a new covenant, the first one is made obsolete. That’s not modern Protestant spin, that’s straight Scripture.
When Jesus brings up “eye for an eye,” He doesn’t affirm it or restate it. He contrasts it. “You have heard that it was said… but I say to you.” If that phrase doesn’t signal a deliberate shift in covenantal ethic, then it’s meaningless. He’s not clarifying Moses. He’s asserting His authority over Moses. If lex talionis still governs Christian conduct, then Christ’s own words undermine themselves.
And the “jot and tittle” argument only works if you ignore what fulfillment actually means in the New Testament. Paul is clear: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Not the continuation of it. The law functioned as a guardian until Christ came, and once faith came, we are no longer under that guardian. That’s not abolishing morality.. it’s completing the covenant that administered it.
Revelation 13:10 doesn’t give Christians permission to exact justice. It describes God’s judgment. There’s a difference between God declaring what He will do and believers being told to do it themselves. Peter couldn’t be clearer: when Christ suffered, He didn’t threaten, He entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly. That’s the apostolic pattern, not retaliation sanctified with Bible verses.
Romans 13 doesn’t rescue your argument either. Paul says the state bears the sword, not the Church. And in the very same letter, one chapter earlier, he tells believers never to avenge themselves and to leave vengeance to God. You can’t pretend Paul forgot what he wrote twelve paragraphs earlier. The distinction is intentional: God uses governments to restrain evil; He calls Christians to bear witness, suffer rightly, and refuse vengeance.
And no, this doesn’t mean there should be no justice system. That’s a false dilemma. Jesus Himself said His kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, His servants would fight. The Church is not a nation-state. Confusing the two is exactly how Christianity gets corrupted into something Christ explicitly rejected.
You keep mocking forgiveness as weakness, but Christ commands it. Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. Overcome evil with good. The apostles didn’t die invoking “eye for an eye.” They died forgiving, because they followed a crucified Messiah, not a retaliatory one.
As for appealing to Church Fathers as if they override Scripture: they don’t. The apostles themselves said we must obey God rather than men, and Paul warned that even if an apostle or an angel preached a different gospel, it was to be rejected. Authority doesn’t flow backward through tradition. It flows from Christ through Scripture.
The rape hypotheticals don’t do what you think they do. Loving your enemy does not mean enabling evil or refusing to restrain it. It means you don’t hate, you don’t take personal vengeance, and you don’t become what you oppose. Judgment belongs to Christ. Vengeance belongs to God. The Church testifies. It doesn’t execute.
You can call that weak if you want.
The Son of God chose a cross instead of legions of angels and told His followers to walk the same path.
God’s moral nature doesn’t change. No one here is arguing that. But how God governs His covenant people absolutely does, and the New Testament is explicit about that. Hebrews doesn’t hedge when it says that by establishing a new covenant, the first one is made obsolete. That’s not modern Protestant spin, that’s straight Scripture.
When Jesus brings up “eye for an eye,” He doesn’t affirm it or restate it. He contrasts it. “You have heard that it was said… but I say to you.” If that phrase doesn’t signal a deliberate shift in covenantal ethic, then it’s meaningless. He’s not clarifying Moses. He’s asserting His authority over Moses. If lex talionis still governs Christian conduct, then Christ’s own words undermine themselves.
And the “jot and tittle” argument only works if you ignore what fulfillment actually means in the New Testament. Paul is clear: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Not the continuation of it. The law functioned as a guardian until Christ came, and once faith came, we are no longer under that guardian. That’s not abolishing morality.. it’s completing the covenant that administered it.
Revelation 13:10 doesn’t give Christians permission to exact justice. It describes God’s judgment. There’s a difference between God declaring what He will do and believers being told to do it themselves. Peter couldn’t be clearer: when Christ suffered, He didn’t threaten, He entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly. That’s the apostolic pattern, not retaliation sanctified with Bible verses.
Romans 13 doesn’t rescue your argument either. Paul says the state bears the sword, not the Church. And in the very same letter, one chapter earlier, he tells believers never to avenge themselves and to leave vengeance to God. You can’t pretend Paul forgot what he wrote twelve paragraphs earlier. The distinction is intentional: God uses governments to restrain evil; He calls Christians to bear witness, suffer rightly, and refuse vengeance.
And no, this doesn’t mean there should be no justice system. That’s a false dilemma. Jesus Himself said His kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, His servants would fight. The Church is not a nation-state. Confusing the two is exactly how Christianity gets corrupted into something Christ explicitly rejected.
You keep mocking forgiveness as weakness, but Christ commands it. Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. Overcome evil with good. The apostles didn’t die invoking “eye for an eye.” They died forgiving, because they followed a crucified Messiah, not a retaliatory one.
As for appealing to Church Fathers as if they override Scripture: they don’t. The apostles themselves said we must obey God rather than men, and Paul warned that even if an apostle or an angel preached a different gospel, it was to be rejected. Authority doesn’t flow backward through tradition. It flows from Christ through Scripture.
The rape hypotheticals don’t do what you think they do. Loving your enemy does not mean enabling evil or refusing to restrain it. It means you don’t hate, you don’t take personal vengeance, and you don’t become what you oppose. Judgment belongs to Christ. Vengeance belongs to God. The Church testifies. It doesn’t execute.
You can call that weak if you want. The Son of God chose a cross instead of legions of angels and told His followers to walk the same path.