THE REVENGE ACCORDING TO PAUL (Rom12,14:17-21) Prof. Jimi ZACKA, PhD

Introduction

 Revenge. An act of sending back to the other what he has done to us, in worse, we want to make the other suffer as we have suffered. It is a response to an offense. This is the only possibility a posteriori when one feels offended by the other. It can be liberating. Because, one wants to make suffer in turn, to feel in a position of superiority in turn. We want to be able to wash ourselves of the offense of which we are a victim. Then we feel that justice has been done. A strong enough word, relating to bad feelings, such as deep bitterness.  Can we think of revenge? Can revenge have an ethical justification?

By studying the text of Rm12, 14:17-21, we will try to answer the question by reading through different Jewish, Old Testament literatures.

To question revenge is to ask oneself the question of the possible meaning of certain human acts even though the "morality" of the time condemns them.  Yet, in human nature, revenge is something almost normal. This is a beastly aspect, which does not require reflection. However, premeditation is still very present in revenge. So in fact, there is no reflection except that of finding a way to take revenge.

Revenge in Old Testament Texts

 Problems with revenge appear very early in the biblical texts. As soon as Cain killed Abel, he feared revenge: "If anyone finds me, he will kill me" (Gen 4:14). In fact, the first post-fall law that is to be instituted is not created to protect Cain from others, but to protect him from his fear of others. Cain projects his murderous feelings onto others, and as a result, he needs the law to protect himself from them. 

 The fact remains that while the ideal many times in the New Testament, and already present in Leviticus (19:17) is "Thou shalt not take revenge." God, to reassure Cain, instituted the rule: "If anyone kills Cain, he will be avenged seven times" (Gen 4:15). A few years later a descendant of Cain, again, following a murder, states an even more deterrent punishment: "Cain will be avenged seven times, and Lemel seventy-seven times" (Gen4:24).

Gradually, over the years, this dimension of revenge will be mitigated by legislative texts, thus gradually approaching the ideal. It will first be the system of Talion that provides revenge to the misdeed committed. This time, we no longer have a  seven-fold or seventy-seven-fold multiplication. Compared to the Code of Hammurabi, Jewish law is a step forward. Indeed, the code of Hammurabi proportionates the punishment to the social quality of the offended person (code of Hammurabi, 196-214): high-ranking character, man of the people, or slave. The torah, more egalitarian, does not make this distinction, referring the offender to another who is his fellow man whoever he is, to make him aware of the pain caused. Vengeance is usually expressed in Hebrew as consolation; and although St. Jerome ordinarily put the word revenge, he sometimes did not leave aside the terms expressing the idea of consolation or consolation in the sense of revenge. For example (Isaiah 1:24), the Machabees: (2Mac 7:6) And in Isaiah, (Isaiah 57:18). But examples of this are much more common in Hebrew.

 The Jewish system provides for the exhaustion of revenge in the event that the murder committed is involuntary. Cities of refuge are set up on the territory of Israel where the murderer can flee (Nb35). He suffers some form of revenge since he must remain cloistered in this city for many years but he is not put to death. Finally, David's historical example testifies to a possible afterlife of vengeance when he renounces to kill Saul his enemy, yet at his mercy (1 Sam 24:1-23; 26:1-25). Thus, by successive evolutions, we approach the ideal (non-revenge) posed by the New Testament.

 Like the people of the Old Testament, the early Christians of the New Covenant also experienced a confrontation with enemies.  And, we will also live this situation until the end of time. If they are forbidden to take revenge (Mt 5:38), can they then await the vengeance of this God who made a covenant with them and thereby pledged to be their Protector? Can they call God to revenge against their oppressors? Or should we reject far any thought related to revenge and apply ourselves to forgive seventy times seven times?

 In any case, one thing is certain: even if we make the effort to forgive, there is something that remains anchored in our nature and that can push us to question the forgiveness we had given, especially when the offender continues to drive the nail. This is the spirit of revenge. How then can we forgive and renounce any desire for revenge, if we mean revenge as giving back to the other the evil he has done to us? In other words, how do we reconcile the forgiveness to be given to those who harm us and the spirit of revenge that seems inherent in human nature? 

Revenge in Rm12, 14:17-21

  The apostle Paul, in Rom12:14:17-21, seems not only to speak to us of a God of vengeance, but also to invite us to cooperate in this divine vengeance: "Bless those who persecute you; bless, do not curse. Do not give back to anyone evil for evil, strive to act well in the eyes of all men. As much as possible, for what depends on you, live in peace with all men. Do not do justice to yourselves, but let God's wrath work. For Scripture says: To me vengeance, it is I who will retribuy, says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, give him food; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink: it will be as if you were piling hot coals on his head. Do not let yourself be overcome by evil, but be victorious over evil by good" (Rom12:14:17-21). . How can we understand this teaching of the Apostle Paul?  

 What the Apostle Paul says is part of the continuation of Christ's words: "love your enemies" (Mt 5:43-48). But in saying this, he does not definitively break with the notion of "revenge". The formula of " not rendering evil speaks ill ", but of " overcoming evil with good " comes up elsewhere in the New Testament, as it is, or in variants (1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9; Mt 5:38-42; Lk 6:29; 3 Jn 11)15. One can find similar formulations in Stoic morality. Judaism, on the other hand, did not expressly ask to love enemies, but only not to take revenge on oneself. Paul, here, goes further, since he asks to " bless" them . This is the novelty of the Gospels (Mt 5:43-44; Lk 6:27-35): "to bless one's enemy".

 But then how to account for the v. 19-20, which speak of "piling burning coals on the head " of the enemy? Paul has just quoted first (v. 19) a passage from Deuteronomy (cf. Dt 32:35), where the Lord declares that vengeance and retribution on the enemies of his people are his responsibility; it is not appropriate to get involved, it would be to encroach on divine responsibility alone; it is therefore first to discourage any idea of human revenge that Paul uses this text of Deuteronomy. But not meddling in divine justice is a negative attitude of restraint that is not enough for the Apostle. He wants to encourage a positive attitude of love and still rely on a text of Scripture. He finds about a sentence from Proverbs that concerned the personal enemy because of the positive attitude it requires.

 One cannot certainly exclude the idea of a divine judgment that will not leave evil unpunished. But is it necessary to suppose a finality between your benevolence and its punishment? We must take into account the context in which Paul brings this quote from Pr 25:20: he calls to "bless". The Apostle's concern is to leave to each one his role: "You, love him; as for retribution, it is God who takes care of it, it is not your business... ». In other words, God's children take revenge by proxy, God's, but by doing good to their aggressor. This is the only trigger element of this revenge. 

 The quotation from Pr 25 is brought on purpose for the acts of charity recommended therein, leaving once again to God alone the concern for the appropriate retribution. The emphasis is not on god's judgment, but on the benevolent behavior required of man. This is precisely the conclusion: " Do not be defeated by evil, but be conquered by evil by good " (v. 21).22 It recapitulates the sequence (vs. 9-21) by identifying the good to which one must attach oneself (love, 12,9) and the evil that one must hate (the absence of love). The Christian would be defeated by evil, if he did not love, even though he is being harmed.

 

 Conclusion

  Thus, to interpret Rom 12:14,17-21 without seeing in it a reference to external persecutors, but to internal tensions and therefore without breaking the unity of a sequence devoted entirely to the Christian community, one can produce a good number of texts of Jewish literature. Lev 19:17-19 (NBS): " Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; you will warn your compatriot, but you will not take on a sin because of him. Thou shalt not take revenge; thou shalt not hold grudges against the people of thy people; you will love your neighbor as yourselves. I am the LORD. ». And as for what he said: Thou shalt not take revenge and hold a grudge against the sons of thy people – any man among the members of the Covenant who introduces a cause against his neighbor without having rebuked him before witnesses, or introduces that cause into the ardour of wickedness, will be punished" (Damascus Document IX,  2-5). 

 In Romans 12:14,17-21, Paul calls for behaviors of righteousness, love, self-commitment out of conscience, before God, not out of servile fear. The goal is to overcome the spirit of revenge and love one's neighbor. Eventually this will lead to practices of emancipation from oneself and the other. Indeed, Desire, drive, envy, plan of revenge no longer seem to have any right of entry into our home, as children of God. The only condition for appealing to divine vengeance is to "love", to "bless", to "not do justice oneself", to "feed" one's enemy.

 In view of all this, it is up to each one to find, in fine, his path of recognition and existence in the face of the violence of the other, recognition of the other as a self, and of "oneself as another" according to the word of Ricoeur, other as seen by others, but also as again and always a little unknown to oneself.  There are certainly other answers to seek than primary revenge, which, referring so much nuisance to violence, has no ethical justification: cannot be a project to live one's humanity serenely with others.

 

  Prof. Jimi ZACKA, PhD

          Exegete