Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Romans Commentary Chapters 9-16  /  Romans 12:17-21 Do Not Repay Evil for Evil  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 1
Paul’s command “repay evil for evil to no one” is treated as absolute in the lesson, with Tertullian saying God “takes no account of who acted first”; what does that reveal about God’s character and priorities in judgment, especially when you feel you’re the “injured party”?
Another way to ask: If God doesn’t care who “started it” and says never repay evil for evil, what does that show about what God values when He judges? How should that change the way you think when you feel like the one who was hurt first?

Direct Answer Based on David Bercot’s teaching, God’s judgment prioritizes the simple reality of evil itself, not the story we tell about why our retaliation was “understandable.” Even if you were injured first, God still condemns the act of repaying evil with evil.

Support from Transcript:

  • Paul’s command is presented as absolute: “Evil is not to be repaid with evil.”
  • Tertullian: “For what difference is there between the one who attacks and the one who retaliates?”—both “stand condemned… for hurting another man.”
  • “In evildoing, God takes no account of who acted first. The commandment is absolute.”
  • God “prohibits and condemns both types of evil,” meaning both the initial harm and the later retaliation.
  • The lesson ties this to Jesus’ teaching: “do not resist evil… turn the other [cheek].”
Discussion Follow-ups If God doesn’t weigh “who started it” when judging retaliation, what excuses do we most often rely on to justify our responses? What would it mean to accept being “the injured party” without claiming a right to return harm?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10
Back Questions Next