“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Romans 12:17-18)
The thing to note is that this is in the context of everything that’s preceded it. Chiefly, that God has done, in Christ, what the Old Testament law could not do – save sinners. The converted sinner, who’s now a new man or woman in Christ, is the one being addressed. They’re being told how to live in the world now that they’ve been “saved.” Ah, but there’s still conflict or else why be told to never repay evil for evil? In all, the new man or woman is told that love is to be their guide and that true love – based in God’s moral law detailed through a quick summation of the back end of the decalogue – does no wrong to a neighbor.
We pause to consider that the idea of not repaying evil with evil does not condemn self-defense. The evil considered here is not a violent attack or else the Scripture would be saying that a woman defending herself from a rape was repaying evil with evil. That’s a monstrous thought. Instead, the context is one of insult or a non-violent injury such as slander. To reply to slander with slander is repaying an evil action with another one. This is the sort of thing that Scripture forbids.
Why the admonition of “if possible?” Well, the Scripture is a set of divine principles. The context here, remember, is that the Christian is called to “renew” their minds through the study and application of God’s word. We’re called to think carefully and to soberly assess ourselves and the world around us. Faith is not unreasonable but, rather, is based on the most reasonable presupposition of all: that God exists, is eternal and righteous, and He created us and everything else. All other presuppositions about life and reality lead us into irrationality[1].
This verse falls into that context. The Christian must be aware that other Christians and non-believers alike are still, lamentably, acting according to the principle of sin – human autonomy, moral relativism, etc. This means, then, that we’re to understand that and take positive actions to avoid “hot” conflicts. We have freedom in Christ, but this freedom is a derivative liberty and we must renounce returning insult for insult and not repay an evil with evil. This is probably the most violated commandment in Scripture. Imagine if Christ, when punched and mocked by guards while He was blindfolded, had decided to act upon His divine prerogative? He surely had the right to judge sin right then and there. They slugged and mocked the divine and holy God of the universe! And He didn’t dash them to a million irredeemable pieces at once as He surely could have in the blink of an eye. Of course, had he done that we’d still be dead in our sin, without hope of redemption and facing the calamity of death without the glorious reality of Easter morning.
Any conflict that occurs, therefore, should and must be directly thrust upon the Christian and not be due to any acts of aggression or disrespect they show toward others. That’s the plain meaning of this text and it applies to our dealings with all people, not just fellow believers. In other words, if conflict arises, and we pray that it doesn’t, it should never be something that we instigated through pride, anger, greed, deceit or a host of other sins. To give thought to do what’s honorable in the sight of all is to live humbly before God, using our political and personal liberties wisely. It also means that we never make demands on what others do with their liberty and/or property. That is, indubitably, the cause of much conflict. No one has the authority to put a commandment on a neighbor that God has not authorized. If we all followed this simple prescription for civil affairs and our personal lives, conflicts would disappear altogether.
[1] For example, to think that there’s no God obliterates meaning, truth and order. Where did the world come from if not from the all-powerful and personal Creator? Did it create itself? That’s a logical impossibility but the very one many are left with. Even the argument over what is true or not is predicated on there being an ultimate truth in reality. A chance universe, or a purely material one, which we’ve already shown is a contradiction in terms, can’t account for why there are immaterial laws like logic nor why truth would mean anything. Without God, truth and personal worth (meaning) are fantasies of high order.
Recent Comments