In my view the Judeo-Christian Perspective is neither absolute, nor relative, but directive. It is not absolute – in the sense that it is the same message in different times and places. It clearly changes in relation to circumstances. But that does not mean that it is relative – in the sense that it is a different message in different times and places. The changes are more like improvisations on the same themes rather than different themes. There is a progression in the development of the central themes of the bible over time, and, I would suggest, it is the direction of that progressive revelation that provides a critical dimension for our deliberations.

At one stage in human history we were commanded to take ‘eye for an eye’ and at another stage in human history we were commanded to ‘turn the other cheek’. These commands are obviously not absolutely the same. There is a significant difference between taking an ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘turning the other cheek’. But I believe the intent behind both of these different commands was the same – and that was to limit the level of retaliation taken in a world caught up in relentless cycles of revenge. Those who take an ‘eye for an eye’ are no more likely to slaughter the innocent than those who opt to ‘turn the other cheek’. But, we cannot simply choose the biblical statement we prefer to rationalize our actions, because the call to take an ‘eye for an eye’ has been superseded by the call to ‘turn the other cheek’. We were called to move from unlimited violence to limited violence by the command to only take an ‘eye for an eye’. And we were called to move on from violence to non-violence by the command to ‘turn the other cheek’. The direction of this revelation – from unlimited violence to limited violence – and, then, from violence to non-violence – is crucial for considering prospective actions.