Retribution: A Comparison of 2 Maccabees and the NT

The OT apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees is rich in its descriptions of torture and oppression of the Jewish people and the resultant gruesome punishment of its oppressors. The Lord is involved in the retribution of both the Jewish people and their enemies. These concepts are in ways removed from a modern western reader’s mentality. To consider the conceptual framework of a Second Temple Jew on retribution five tenets will be discussed. From these tenets and subsequent comparison with three New Testament passages, the reader will grasp the Second Temple Jew’s mindset regarding retribution and its presence in the writing of New Testament authors as well.

The first tenet is retribution is an act the Jews can call to God to carry out. The story early on depicts Nehemiah praying for God to afflict the Gentiles for their two sins of oppression and insolence (1:28). This mindset speaks to a division between the Jews and the rest of the world and particularly those who are against them. The seventh son tells Antiochus that he and his brothers appeal to God for affliction to come upon him (7:37). This appeal seems to indicate an intended result of the afflictions is a reverential, monotheistic confession from Antiochus. The fruition of these words can be considered as the narrative transpires in chapter nine. Antiochus is said to acknowledge the Lord’s doing in his bowel pains. He sought to reduce its severity by vowing to the Lord, but it does not produce this result. Thus, the sons’ calls for God’s retribution are answered in the narrative.

Secondly, the negative outcomes on the Jew’s enemies are attributed directly to God and described as His punishment. The way that this is shown in the text is through narration and not direct words from God. This does not negate the true relationship of God to these events in the mind of the author. It does indicate that the author is involved in interpretation to congeal the outcomes to retributive causes. The actions of Antiochus against Andronicus in 4:38 are described as God’s “repayment”. The conceptual framework of the author assumes secondary means as a legitimate action to be ascribed to God. This is applied equally to the internal, medical outcomes experienced by Antiochus. While there are not external signs to validate the attribution to God, the narratorial comments bring the reader to these conclusions. Thus in the mind of the author, God punishes enemies through the negative outcomes that befall them.

Thirdly, God’s retribution of the Jew’s enemies is described as responsive, proportionate and predictable. The punishment is always in relation to the evil deeds committed and the Lord responds. The punishment is never misdirected or arbitrary in its exaction but proportional to the oppression and arrogance of the enemy. The actions of Andronicus, Nicanor and Antiochus are met with God’s “deserved or “just” punishment (4:38; 7:36). The proportionality even extends to the level of irony in the extremes of accordance to lex talionis. This extreme irony produces in the reader an almost humorous response at the reversals of Antiochus (9:4-8). The predictable nature of retribution is shown in confidence of the narrator’s descriptions of the Lord’s emotions towards enemies (5:17-20 and 6:13-14). Characters trust in predictable retribution to follow. In 7:34-35 the seventh son assures Antiochus of God’s punishment and its inescapable consequences. Judas is confident that God will attack those opposing the Jews in 8:18.

Fourthly, the meting out of negative outcomes to the Jewish people themselves is described differently. These negative outcomes are still attributed to God but termed “discipline” (6:12, 14; 7:32; 10:4). The outcomes are similar to those befalling the enemies such as pain and brutal murder (6:10-11; 7:1-23). Similar to the punishment of the enemies, the Jews experience discipline in response to their sinful ways (4:16-17; 6:14-17). The key distinction between punishment and discipline is the narrator’s interpretation of God’s purposes.

Finally, God’s timing of punishment and discipline is intentional and meaningful. The distinction between punishment and discipline is clearly shown to be in the author’s mind by the comments of 6:12-17. The narrator clarifies that the swift discipline is actually merciful kindness. The Lord is patient in His punishment of the other nations waiting to give them the full judgment for all of their sins. The Lord disciplines the Jews as a sign of their relationship not forsakenness. This interpretation by the author is a means of dealing with the occupation of Israel and seeming distance of the Lord from the time of the exile.

The New Testament shares the retribution concepts of 2 Maccabees with several comparable statements. Due to space limitations, the comparison will engage the works of three New Testament authors. First, Paul’s statements in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 shares 2 Maccabees’ view of the Lord’s measuring of sins prior to punishment. Paul’s words of God’s wrath falling upon the Jewish people are also similar in sense to the statements of 8:11 and the overtaking of God’s judgment upon Nicanor. Paul has now interpreted God’s retributive punishment as falling upon the Jewish nation.

Secondly, 2 Peter displays similar concepts to 2 Maccabees on the predictable nature of retribution and timing of its occurrences. 2 Peter 2:9-10 functions as part of a larger discussion about false teachers. It describes the unrighteous as “under punishment” waiting for the predictable outpouring from God. 2 Peter 3:7-10 concerns timing as God is said to not be slow in keeping promises but waiting in judgment to prevent perishing. Here the patience of God is merciful over against 2 Maccabees’ swift mercy.

Finally, the unnamed author of Hebrews shares the viewpoint of discipline in Hebrews 12:3-11. Discipline is acknowledged as painful (Heb. 12:11) but proof of a relationship with the Lord. The purpose of the discipline is clearly for purifying of one’s life in holiness (compare Heb 12:10 and 2 Macc 7:32).

The tenets of retribution from 2 Maccabees can be related to New Testament teachings as well. These mental connections regarding retribution require closer attention to what is congruent and what is purposefully distinct in the New Testament. The differences that might be detected do not undermine the corollaries of retribution presented between 2 Maccabees and these New Testament passages.