Some argue that Paul advocates love in order to defeat one's enemies, thereby undoing Christ's work in Matthew 5:43-45 and returning to the pre-Christ era. However, the phrase in Proverbs that Paul quotes in Romans 12:20 is alluding to an Egyptian ritual of repentance in which the subject willingly carried embers in a bowl on their head as a public sign of repentance. It is unlikely that people in NT times were aware of this detail, but the Targum commentaries Paul would have been familiar with did still grasp that the person in Proverbs was a former enemy who had been turned into a friend. Paul is not undoing anything said by Christ but is reminding people to show restorative love rather than seeking personal vengeance.

Critics sometimes assert that Jesus taught a loving religion in strict opposition to the Old Testament, and suggest that Paul actually corrupted Christ's teachings, offering two comparisons as evidence.

The first, a comparison of Matt. 5:43-45 and Romans 12:20:
> Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

> Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

It is argued that Paul advocates what he calls love in order to defeat one's enemies and thereby undoes Christ's work and returns us to the pre-Christ era.

As Klassen shows in his article "Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or Revenge?" (New Testament Studies 9, 1963, 337-50) the phrase in Proverbs is alluding to an Egyptian ritual of repentance in which the subject willingly carried embers in a bowl on their head as a public sign of repentance. It is unlikely that people in NT times were aware of this detail, but the Targum commentaries Paul would have been familiar with did still grasp that the person in Proverbs was a former enemy who had been turned into a friend.

The second offering compares Matt. 5:38-39 with Romans 12:19:
> Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

> Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Here we are told that Christ "directly contradicts" the OT and that his command is "cleverly undone by Paul" -- but as the "right cheek" context tells us (along with study of relevant source material), what Christ contradicts here is the false application of the OT to personal matters, when the original law was made in the context of vested authorities delivering equitable punishments. Christ is not contradicting the OT, but a wayward application of it; Paul is not "undoing" anything said by Christ but is reminding people not to take personal vengeance, just as Jesus did -- and pointing out, as Jesus did in other contexts, that God's judgment for sin will eventually come upon people who do wrong.

Problem: According to Jesus, we are supposed to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and do good to those who hate us (Matt. 5:44). However, according to John, we are not to receive into our house or even greet anyone who comes to us and does not believe that Christ is come in the flesh. Which are we supposed to do?

Solution: We are supposed to follow both instructions. The apparent discrepancy between these directives arises from the fact that they are talking about two totally different situations.

In the passage in Matthew, Jesus is contrasting His own teaching to that of the Pharisees. The divine principle of love should be the guiding principle of one’s life. Even though some people are the enemies of God, He still allows the rain to fall upon their crops and causes the sun to shine on them. God treats the wicked with loving kindness. However, He never condones their wickedness. As Paul points out in Romans, the goodness of God is not a sign of His approval of their actions. Rather, the goodness of God is designed to lead to repentance (Rom. 2:4).

The passage in 2 John is not talking about someone who simply comes to visit. Rather, John is talking about false teachers who are deceivers (v.7) and who come to present their doctrines.

First, John is instructing the local church, and the individuals of the local church, not to extend hospitality to these persons, because that would imply that the church accepted or approved of their teaching. The people of the local church were directed not even to give a Christian greeting to them, lest this be misconstrued as an attitude of tolerance of their false doctrines. This was by no means a command not to love one’s enemy. In fact, following John’s directives would be the supreme act of love for one’s enemy. By clearly demonstrating an intolerance for false doctrine, it would be possible to communicate to false teachers that they needed to repent. On the contrary, if the church or individual were to extend hospitality to a false teacher, he would be encouraged in his position and take this action as an acceptance of his doctrine, or as a covering of his unrighteousness.

Second, it must be remembered that, in the early church, the evangelistic and pastoral ministry of the church was conducted primarily by individuals who traveled from location to location. These itinerant pastors depended on the hospitality of the people of a local congregation. John is directing the church not to extend this kind of hospitality to teachers of false doctrine. This is not contradictory to Jesus’ teaching. We are to love our enemies, but not encourage them in their evil deeds. We are to do good to them that hate us, but not to condone their wickedness. As Jesus said, we are to show ourselves to be children of our Father. In the very same Sermon on the Mount, Jesus went on to warn His disciples to beware of false prophets “whocome... in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15). John gave practical application to this warning, and thereby encouraged the local church to maintain its purity and devotion to Christ. Early Christian tradition supports this; St. Irenaeus records that the Apostle John himself fled from a bathhouse when the heretic Cerinthus entered, demonstrating this exact principle of not associating with those who distort the core truths of Christianity.

Psalm 109:1
ff—How can the God of love in the NT be reconciled with the vengeful God of these cursing Psalms?
Problem:
This psalm, like many others in the OT (e.g.,
Pss. 35
;
69
), pronounces curses on one’s enemies. Thus they are called imprecatory (cursing) psalms. David says, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife
a widow” (
109:9
). By contrast, Jesus said, “Love your enemies ... and pray for those who ... persecute you” (
Matt. 5:44
). How can the God of vengeance of the OT be the same as the God of love of the NT (
1 John 4:16
)?
Solution:
Several important factors must be kept in mind in understanding these imprecatory or so-called cursing psalms.

First, the judgment called for is based on
divine justice
and not on
human grudges.
David said clearly of his enemies in this psalm, “they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love” (v.
5
). While David did pray this imprecation (curse) on his enemies, he nonetheless loved them and committed them to the justice of God for a due reward for their wicked deeds. David’s action in sparing Saul’s life is vivid proof that revenge was not a motivation behind this psalm. In spite of the fact that Saul stalked David’s life, David forgave Saul and even spared his life (cf.
1 Sam. 24
;
26
).

Second, judgment in these psalms is expressed in terms of the culture of the day. Since being fatherless or a widow was considered a tragedy, the curse is expressed in these commonly understood categories.

Third, since the Hebrew culture made no sharp distinction between the sinner and his sin, the judgment is expressed in personal terms rather than abstractly. Furthermore, since the Hebrew family was a solidarity, the whole family was saved (cf. Noah,
Gen. 7–8
) or judged together (cf. Achan,
Josh. 7:24
).

Fourth, the phenomenon of imprecation is not unique to the OT. Jesus urged His disciples to curse cities that did not receive the Gospel (
Matt. 10:14
). Jesus Himself called down judgment on Bethsaida and Capernaum in
Matthew 11:21–24
. Paul declared anathema any who did not love the Lord Jesus (
1 Cor. 16:22
). Even the saints in heaven cried out to God for vengeance on those who martyred believers (
Rev. 6:9–10
).

Fifth, imprecations are not a primitive or purely OT phenomenon. Justice executed on evil is just as much a part of God, as is blessing on the righteous. Both are true of God in the OT as well as in the NT. In fact, God is mentioned as being loving more often in the OT than in the NT.

Sixth, because the OT emphasis was on earthly reward, connected with family, prosperity, and the land, the OT curses were expressed in these terms. With the NT revelation expressed more in terms of eternal destiny, there was less need to express imprecations in these earthly terms.

Even in these OT imprecations one can see an anticipation of Christ. God has committed all judgment to the Son (
John 5:22
). So those who long for justice are not only aspiring to His righteous kingdom, but can wait patiently for Him who comes quickly to execute it justly (
Rev. 22:12
). Christians also interpret these enemies spiritually as our sinful passions.