Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 8

On “turn the other cheek,” Augustine argues punishment and even “vengeance” can be compatible with love if it is for correction (using parents beating a child as an analogy); what parts of Augustine’s reasoning feel persuasive to you, and what parts feel like the “mental gymnastics” Bercot condemns?

Another way to ask: On “turn the other cheek,” Augustine says punishment can still be loving if it corrects someone, like a parent hitting a child. What parts of his argument make sense to you, and what parts feel like twisting Jesus’ words?

Direct Answer The persuasive part is Augustine’s emphasis that correction can be motivated by love, not hatred; the “mental gymnastics,” as Bercot presents it, is that Augustine uses this to reintroduce “vengeance” and punishments in a passage where Jesus plainly says “not to resist an evil person.”

Support from Transcript:

Jesus’ command is quoted: “not to resist an evil person… turn the other [cheek],” which Bercot calls “straightforward.”
Augustine says Christians are not “precluded from inflicting such vengeance as serves for correction,” redefining the issue.
He argues only a person with “greatness of… love” should punish, attempting to make vengeance compatible with love.
His key analogy: parents “beaten” a son “so that he may not go on offending,” suggesting punishment can be corrective.
Augustine appeals to God’s discipline: “for whom the Lord loves, he corrects… he scourges every son,” and cites servants being “beaten with few stripes… many stripes.”
Bercot responds with a broad critique: “So, it is okay to take vengeance… Only make sure you do it out of love,” then concludes, “With such mental gymnastics, a person can make any verse… say whatever he wants.”

Discussion Follow-ups How do you distinguish faithful interpretation from convenient reinterpretation when a passage is “straightforward” but costly to obey?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 8 of 10