“Finally, Jesus in the NT (Matthew 5-7) completely and explicitly rejects the whole Law of Talion.”
You reference to the sermon on the mount but ignored the small excerpt which I posted and which addresses this issue. It is clear from numerous passages that He explicitly supported capital punishment, and numerous other punishments for criminal acts.
In no way was Jesus telling His followers, His enemies, or any governments of the world to abandon basic principle of punishment for crimes.
There were people who twisted the Old Testament scriptures to justify their own lack of love, their own eagerness to punish those who had wronged them personally, their own selfishness and greed. This what Jesus was addressing.
We see Christ in other passages make it very clear that certain offenses deserve fines, imprisonment, beatings, or even death. But He was showing a higher way personally for citizens of His kingdom. A person can show mercy and forgiveness.
Anyone who can imagine applying “turn the other cheek” to a person who burns a little child to death is ignoring the volume of scripture about the life of Christ. How did Christ respond to even the slightest wrong treatment of children? He was upset over it. He also warned about the last days in which children would be abused, and He described the terrible wrath of God upon such people.
“In Hittite, Mesopotamian, and Ugaritic literature, you will see lots of texts celebrating torture. These chronicles and legislative texts spell out in graphic detail flaying, the maiming of criminals, enemies and captives, cutting off thumps and toes, castration, disemboweling,torment by fire and water, and sickening piecemeal mutilation.”
Yes, and this was NEVER allowed, even under the Law of Moses. Jesus did not put an end to such customs because they never existed in Israel (except when Israel strayed and served false gods).
Here is an example of the limits of beatings under Moses:
Deuteronomy 25:3
Forty blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight.
The eye-for-an-eye principle is not about desiring to torture anyone. It is about justice. A person who intentionally inflicts harm on someone deserves the same thing to be done to them. This is the essence of justice. The Bible, including the New Testament advocates justice and judgment. There is a lot of false doctrine that twists scripture to promote a false peace, a false mercy, a false basis of forgiveness and salvation.
This woman who burned this child alive is going to go to Hell. Hell is a much worse torment than if this woman were to be burned to death. If she knew that she was going to face this consequence of her actions, she would have never committed them in the first place, which is why eye-for-an-eye exists.
Even today if she knew she was going to be executed for her crimes, she would be much more likely to try to make peace with God and possibly avoid Hell.
So refusing to mete out justice ultimately is LESS merciful because it ignores that people need to face their own mortality and ultimate accountability to God.
“Although war and the death penalty are spelled out in the Torah, the OT royal chronicles and the Prophets, what you won’t find is sadistic displays and judicial mutilation.”
God’s punishment for sin is FAR, FAR worse than eye-for-an-eye.
In Revelation 2-3, Jesus makes it clear He will execute judgment and wants ALL of the Churches to KNOW that He will “render to every person according to his deeds.”
The consequences under the laws of our nations for committing crimes of torture and murder are FAR too lenient so as to encourage would-be criminals to continue to do these things without fear of punishment. This is the clearest indication that these laws are unjust. And it is a crying shame that Christians rush to promote a phony concept of “mercy” in the name of Jesus when such false doctrines are highly destructive to individuals and society.
There is certainly a place for mercy, but there is also a time and place for punishing crimes, such as the burning to death of a innocent, defenseless child. This one cries out for JUSTICE.
You are refuting a pacifist argument I did not make. I opposed neither a just application of capital punishment nor the use of deadly force in war to protect innocents and stop an aggressor. Perhaps you can find a Mennonite to debate but God bless them, that wouldn’t be me.