I agree with both of you. The Bible seems to teach—depending on historical period, literary genre, pastoral situation at hand, etc.—that we reap what we sow and that we don’t reap what we sow.

Laytham argues that a truly Christian sense of justice requires us to emphasize the latter over the former—even if it takes tremendous patience and appears foolish to the world.

Jesus chose crucifixion. It was a dramatic example of not reaping what you sow that also satisfied—in a substitutionary way—the reap what you sow ethic in order to allow the world to receive grace and escape a well deserved butt whooping. Or at least, that’s the way we western Christians normally understand atonement. The Bible has lots of images and metaphors of atonement that don’t fit this pattern.

I liked Laytham’s idea that the whole point of biblical justice is to restore relationship and community.

I really appreciated Micah’s honest take that the Bible isn’t much help with certain specific issues like slavery or other critical moral and ethical challenges.

And I agree with your take, Tyler, that a more ‘comprehensive’ hermeneutic is required that focuses on the overall and ongoing direction of biblical revelation. I think Micah is right that the bible isn’t the book you want to use to critique slavery specifically, but if you look at the comprehensive teaching of Scripture slavery’s days are obviously numbered.

Of course, the ‘comprehensive’ hermeneutic idea is only important if you believe the Bible should have some basic unity in its ethical teaching. Many believe it doesn’t have that kind of unity and couldn’t possibly have it given the variety of cultures and situations and millennia that gave birth to Scripture. I’ve gained more sympathy for that take as I get older and gain more experience around the world.

I think contrasting Greco-Roman and biblical notions of justice is apt. The Greco-Roman notion of one getting what they deserve as determined by generally abstract criteria has been understood by many as the biblical idea of justice. The Greco-Roman notion is a reasonable idea and can clearly make ordering a society easier than a notion that is heavily relational. Laytham is correct, in my opinion, to show that the biblical notion is far more relational and is not, in fact, an antonym of mercy. I think your point that the Bible does not address all issues that press us is correct, but I fear that we can easily push the Bible to the margins when we face a new controversy like stem cells, nuclear war, etc. Yes, we can and do appeal to reason, but what happens when we encounter the fact that many of the biblical values such as sacrifice and grace are seen by society as foolishness?

Moreover, I’m not sure why a Greco-Roman idea in and of itself is suspect. The Bible doesn’t have an answer for everything. Men and women can appeal to reason in addition to scripture, and have done so on either side of the death penalty debate. Back in the day the Bible wasn’t really helpful in the debates on slavery, just as it’s not terribly helpful with the debate on stem cells and cloning today.