Just an aside note:




Regarding Jesus bending down and writing in the


DUST with his finger in John 8:6





I believe Jesus was writing the names of the accusers.





In Jeremiah 17:13 it states:


"..All who abandon you will be ashamed,


those who leave you will be INSCRIBED IN THE


DUST, because they have abandoned the Lord,


the source of living water."





....."at this they began to leave..." (john 8:9)


or were they abandoning the scene?!

OT,

Regarding your earlier worries that people's opinion of you might get into a search engine, you can rest easy. According to this search:


http://www.google.com/search?q=blustering+litig...>
, nothing from this page has made it into Google. You should leave the threats of lawsuit to the scientologists.

We're talking about hypothetical principles, not how I should personally behave in any given situation. Duh.

So are you saying that you don't buy into your own "teachings?" Because if you wouldn't actually act in a violent manner to "protect," "defend," or "advance" the Kingdom, then what is the point of your assertions?




You assert that we should act violently for the Kingdom of God, but now you are saying that you wouldn't behave that way.





I need to do some work...maybe I will respond to some of your non-sense later.

Dave,




We're talking about hypothetical principles, not how I should personally behave in any given situation.

Oh man...I really don't have time for this anymore, or the energy.




Common sense... So Paul would be killed for acting violently, but you won't? I see...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

As you can see, Christ did not come to destroy the law. Appealing that there is a "new law" is contradicting Christ's statement in Matthew 5. Christ did not make a new law.

Did you see Paul responding violently to those who arrested him and prevented him from spreading the Kingdom of God? Your claims about the use of violence would imply that Paul should have responded violently to those that got in the way. How do you respond to this?

I respond by appealing to common sense- Paul didn't use violence because if he did they would have chopped him up into little bits. One man cannot fight against a whole slew of soldiers. Paul had no promise from God that He would deliver Paul if Paul started to fight with the people who had captured him. Paul was using common sense, and in that situation it was common sense to turn the other cheek. This does not imply that the principle should apply to every situation.

Yet you have little reason to do so. You certainly have no Biblical support to do so. You even keep referring back to "the two greatest commands," yet you never talk about the second one about loving each other.

No one denies the duty to obey the second greatest command, but we are confining ourselves to those situations where the first command to love God overrules the second command to love neighbor.

You are using poetry as proof? Do you take all of the Psalms literally? Funny that you are attacking me for using the direct commands of Jesus as literal commands, yet you use a poem/song as literal proof. Interesting.

Yes I take Psalm 149 literally, and why can't I? You have no proof that forces me to take it figuratively. I think its quite clear- the saints have the right to conquer heathen kings.

As for your Old Testament interpretations, I do believe that we are under a different covenant, one that Jesus was quite clear about with the use of violence. Did you see Paul responding violently to those who arrested him and prevented him from spreading the Kingdom of God? Your claims about the use of violence would imply that Paul should have responded violently to those that got in the way. How do you respond to this?

You claim that we are under a different covenant than Israel was, which is incorrect. Since I am a Calvinist and covenant theologian I would take issue with your assessment that the New Testament= New Covenant. But even assuming that you are right, the burden of proof is on you to show that the New Covenant law in the respect of warfare is different from the Old Covenant law. I see no reason to assume it is. The verses you cite about turning the other cheek do not force one to agree with you. The burden is on you to show that the commands in the sermon are to be taken universally and literally. Its quite clear that they are not to be so taken, as Christ used the word 'fool' even though it is condemned in the Sermon, and resisted evil even though the sermon states you should not resist evil.

Psalm 149 clearly declares that the saints may use swords and weapons to advance the Kingdom of God.

You are using poetry as proof? Do you take all of the Psalms literally? Funny that you are attacking me for using the direct commands of Jesus as literal commands, yet you use a poem/song as literal proof. Interesting.

No one is ignoring the second command, I am merely subordinating it to the greatest command!

Yet you have little reason to do so. You certainly have no Biblical support to do so. You even keep referring back to "the two greatest commands," yet you never talk about the second one about loving each other.




As for your Old Testament interpretations, I do believe that we are under a different covenant, one that Jesus was quite clear about with the use of violence. Did you see Paul responding violently to those who arrested him and prevented him from spreading the Kingdom of God? Your claims about the use of violence would imply that Paul should have responded violently to those that got in the way. How do you respond to this?

Well even if He did not use the whip, and had no intention of using the whip, you would have to admit He went in with a deceptive intention

I don't have to admit that at all. Have you ever been to the circus? The animal trainers do not use the whip to actually hit the animals. They use it to control the animals.

If someone is coming at your daughter with a knife and intends to rape her are you going to tell her to turn the other cheek?

I love this question. Extremes are wonderful straw mans, but I will respond anyway. I have no idea how I would respond if my daughter (I do not have one) or wife were attacked. But I am confident that scripture is quite clear about the need to be non-violent. I do know one thing - I do not think that the appropriate response would be to kill the person. I also am very confident that if someone close to me was murdered I would do everything I could to make sure that person did not receive the death penalty.

Phinehas took a spear and slew his neighbor through with it while the neighbor was wickedly fornicating with his with a foreign woman. Here we see Phinehas disobeying the command to love your neighbor as yourself, in order to obey the Greater command to love God above all things. And God rewarded Him, a fine example of the phrase "zeal for thy house consumes me".

If someone is coming at your daughter with a knife and intends to rape her are you going to tell her to turn the other cheek? David, your interpretations of Christ's lesser commands is not only unbiblical, they lead to morally absurd results.

Wrong. There is absolutely zero evidence that Jesus used the whip against people, and you know it.

Well even if He did not use the whip, and had no intention of using the whip, you would have to admit He went in with a deceptive intention (the intention to have them think he was going to use it against them, when He really wasn't). This would technically be a violation of the lesser command in Leviticus 19:11 not to deceive.

The problem is that you are using Biblical passages that say nothing about the use of violence as a tool to advance or defend the Kingdom of God.

Psalm 149 clearly declares that the saints may use swords and weapons to advance the Kingdom of God. Phineas used a weapon to advance the Kingdom of God. David used weapons to advance the Kingdom of God. What Bible are you reading? There may be no mention of weapons being used by the Apostles in the New Testament, but a mere lack of mention of weapons being used in the New Testament is not proof that it's forbidden.





The Old Testament likewise contains command of love toward enemies, but they were obviously not always obeyed and God honored those who used weapons.





You have no right to demand people interpret the New Testament passages to be literally applied in every situation, because you don't have the requisite proof. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Your quoting of Christ's lesser commands does not prove your position, because I can find biblical examples that refute their literal and universal application; and also because I rely on Christ's interpretation of his own law, that these lesser laws hang (depend) on the greatest law of love toward God.

You continue to go back to "the two greatest commands," yet you continue to blatantly ignore the second command.

No one is ignoring the second command, I am merely subordinating it to the greatest command!

Anyway the example of the NT weapon used is a whip, which was used by Christ Himself, against the moneychangers in the temple.

Wrong. There is absolutely zero evidence that Jesus used the whip against people, and you know it.

David- you are making the false assumption that "if its not mentioned in the New Testament, its not allowed".

I did not assume that, but if you are going to create a theology, you better have Biblical evidence.

You can't extrapolate from that special situation before the crucifixion where Christ specifically wanted to be captured, and force it to apply to the entire future of Christianity.

I am not extrapolating from that passage. I am simply giving the only NT example of a person using a weapon to "defend Christ."

Rahab, Jesus, Paul, the two greatest commands, Romans 13, Psalm 149, 1 Chronicles- I mean how much more biblical justification do you seriously need?

The problem is that you are using Biblical passages that say nothing about the use of violence as a tool to advance or defend the Kingdom of God.

And He specifically said all the rest of the commandments hang on the two greatest commandments, the first of which is to love God and act in His interest.

You continue to go back to "the two greatest commands," yet you continue to blatantly ignore the second command.




What is the second command? Love your neighbor as yourself. Later Jesus is quite clear who you neighbor is - everyone, including your "enemy."





Here is a pretty simply question: How is loving your enemy equated with killing them?

Oh by the way, to answer David's question whether I can provide where any physical weapon was used in the New Testament to defend Christ, I can provide one such weapon. In fact I've mentioned it before already. But even if no such weapon were in the New Testament, that still would not disprove my position, unless you assume that "if its not mentioned in the NT, its not allowed". That assumption in and of itself is totally fallacious of course.




Anyway the example of the NT weapon used is a whip, which was used by Christ Himself, against the moneychangers in the temple.

Oppose Tyranny...can you give me any Biblical examples, specifically from the New Testament, where someone used "physical swords" (i.e. any physical weapons) to "defend Christ?"

Dave - you are making the false assumption that "if its not mentioned in the New Testament, its not allowed".

The only example that I know of is Peter in the garden where he explicitly was told to put the sword away.

You can't extrapolate from that special situation before the crucifixion where Christ specifically wanted to be captured, and force it to apply to the entire future of Christianity.

I don't know if Brad will, but I can. You assert that the Bible commands that Christians should violently defend the Kingdom of God with physical weapons. Yet you can give no Biblical justification.

How can you claim I've given no Biblical justification? Read above for the numerous verses I've cited to support my theology. Rahab, Jesus, Paul, the two greatest commands, Romans 13, Psalm 149, 1 Chronicles - I mean how much more biblical justification do you seriously need?

Nor can you respond to the facts about how this concept is directly opposed to the actual teachings of Jesus (love your neighbor, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, blesses are the PEACEmakers, etc). You claim that those commands are "less important," yet you give little more than random proof texts to support your claims.

Those 'random proof texts' do support my claims, 100%. Jesus did not even follow His own commandments literally and for every situation. And He specifically said all the rest of the commandments hang on the two greatest commandments, the first of which is to love God and act in His interest. Sometimes "turning the other cheek" is not in God's interest- His will to expand His kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.

Oppose Tyranny...can you give me any Biblical examples, specifically from the New Testament, where someone used "physical swords" (i.e. any physical weapons) to "defend Christ?"




The only example that I know of is Peter in the garden where he explicitly was told to put the sword away.





You assert that the Bible commands that Christians should violently defend the Kingdom of God with physical weapons. Yet you can give no Biblical justification. Nor can you respond to the facts about how this concept is directly opposed to the actual teachings of Jesus (love your neighbor, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, blesses are the peacemakers, etc). You claim that those commands are "less important," yet you give little more than random proof texts to support your claims.

What is to be considered a threat to Christendom that requires us to go to war?

This is a very complicated question that depends on the circumstances at hand. Often scripture only provides us with a general moral framework and we then must apply that framework depending on the circumstances. There are no easy answers to the question you have posed above.

On what basis do you say one command is greater than another command? Who is to say which command is greater than the other? The way you use "greater command" and "lesser command" is very disturbing to me. Jesus was not prioritizing commands but chose those two commands because they sum up all of the law of God. Jesus is almost saying that you can divide up the law into two groups: A.) Love God; B.) Love mankind. All the commandments fall under one of those groups

This in my view is an inaccurate interpretation of Christ's mention of the two greatest commandments. While these commandments certainly summarize the remaining commandments, I interpret this verse to also mean that they reach beyond the lesser commands as well, to get to the whole point of the lesser commands. Therefore, if in a particular situation one of the lesser commands conflicts with the point of the law, as mentioned by the two greatest commandments, those lesser commandments give way in that situation to another course of action. I think this is demonstrated and supported by the fact that many times we see saints going against one or another of the lesser commandments, but who are justified in their behavior. Phineas (spearing the fornicator), Jesus (the whipping in the temple; calling his enemies fools), Paul (smiting Elymas with blindness), Rahab (lying to the soldiers)- all demonstrate situations where saints are disobeying a particular lesser commandment and are justified by God in so doing.

While Jesus placed one over the other, he did not mean for them to be completely separated from each other. We love God by loving our neighbor. In the book of Leviticus God is defining his holiness which we are to obtain. Over and over in Leviticus we are told to be hold as Yahweh is holy. One way we are to be holy is to love our neighbor. Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 25:40, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

I entirely agree that often when we obey a lesser commandment we are also obeying a greater commandment. This is often the case. But you have not proven that this is always the case. There are times when it may be more loving to our neighbor to allow them more time to 'convert' to the truth for example; but perhaps the emergency of a situation no longer permits it and we must go to war to slay the enemy in that situation. Also, recall what David declares in the Psalms, that he hates the enemies of God. Our love for God makes it excusable to hate God's enemies if they are seriously damaging His cause.

Would you say that Ephesians 6:10-18 and 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 are not the ways we as Christians are to wage war? That we are engaged in a spiritual battle with spiritual weapons. Especially since Ephesians 6:12 says that we don't war against flesh and blood. Yet you are advocating that we do. I have no problems with the secular government having the right to wage war on another country with guns and bombs. But for the church to use those weapons to clearly fight in a way that the church was never intended to fight.

Everyone agrees that we are to use spiritual weapons to wage war, the question is may we also use carnal weapons. I argue that we can. Ephesians 6:12 is simply making a statement of fact that the Apostles did not wage war with physical swords, but that does not necessarily imply that it is forbidden in all times and all places, especially after Christianity has been accepted by enough people where it would be safe and salutary to wage war that way. Another reason why the Apostles did not wage war was because in that special dispensation of the Church, when it was just beginning, it would have seemed more miraculous and from God if people converted by peaceable means. But now that so many people believe in Christ, it is no longer as necessary to work along such lines.

We all need help in this area. I hope the texts I have shown in these comments will help you better understand more of the biblical picture of how a Christian should interact with his brother. Please do not be offended by any of my statements for I only want to further this discussion about a very important matter.

Henry, I am not offended at all do not worry. I understand that we are all at different levels of knowledge. No one is a heretic unless he shows clear dishonesty when he interprets the texts. If a particular text admits of more than one reasonable interpretation, you should not condemn a brother who follows that other reasonable interpretation. That would be schismatic.

What is to be considered a threat to Christendom that requires us to go to war?




When I asked what made you better than a Militant Islamic Extremist in your use of violence, I was speaking in an evangelistic context. One method of the spread of Islam is through the sword. But Christ calls us to preach the gospel with words and the Scriptures, not with a sword to force a conversion. Since you said that evangelism is part of the line, you have answered that question.





On what basis do you say one command is greater than another command? Who is to say which command is greater than the other? The way you use "greater command" and "lesser command" is very disturbing to me. Jesus was not prioritizing commands but chose those two commands because they sum up all of the law of God. Jesus is almost saying that you can divide up the law into two groups: <ol><li>Love God;</li><li>Love mankind.</li></ol>





All the commandments fall under one of those groups. While Jesus placed one over the other, he did not mean for them to be completely separated from each other. We love God by loving our neighbor. In the book of Leviticus God is defining his holiness which we are to obtain. Over and over in Leviticus we are told to be hold as Yahweh is holy. One way we are to be holy is to love our neighbor. Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 25:40, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."





Would you say that Ephesians 6:10-18 and 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 are not the ways we as Christians are to wage war? That we are engaged in a spiritual battle with spiritual weapons. Especially since Ephesians 6:12 says that we don't war against flesh and blood. Yet you are advocating that we do. I have no problems with the secular government having the right to wage war on another country with guns and bombs. But for the church to use those weapons to clearly fight in a way that the church was never intended to fight.





Are you saying that the command of Jesus and Paul to forgive as others have forgiven you is a lesser command? Isn't one point of Matthew 18:21-35 that the way we honor him who has forgiven us is to forgive others who have offended us?





Romans 5:6-10 says that we are God's enemies. How come he didn't destroy us and exact his revenge against us? Isn't this what you advocate him to do?

This is all about knowing the whole counsel of God, this is the main problem most Christians have today.

We all need help in this area. I hope the texts I have shown in these comments will help you better understand more of the biblical picture of how a Christian should interact with his brother. Please do not be offended by any of my statements for I only want to further this discussion about a very important matter.

Henry,




That is indeed my clarification. It would not be warfare for failing to convert, but warfare if you threatened the welfare of Christendom.





When you ask me "how is this any better than the Militant Islamic Extremist" you are implicitly asking me "how is this any better than God's law" since God Himself commanded the Israelites to wage warfare against their enemies who threatened them. Israel is, of course, the Old Testament visible body of Christ- the OT Church.





I think the scriptural proofs are pretty much irrefutable. It is obvious that God commands warfare in numerous places when Christians have the capability, seeing my examples above. To take one of God's lesser commandments and make it apply to every situation ignores the whole context and counsel of God in scripture. Jesus Himself did not obey all of His lesser commands in every situation. Being a perfect sinless man, He was bound to obey the law perfectly. Yet, we find him taking a whip and using physical violence against the moneychangers in the temple. Obviously then, Jesus Himself does not take His precept to "turn the other cheek" and "resist not evil" to apply to every situation!





This is all about knowing the whole counsel of God, this is the main problem most Christians have today. As Psalm 149 declares, His saints are Kings and have the right to use force when it is wise to do so.

Oppose Tyranny,




It sounds like you are saying if the church held political control, she could use violent means to convert people to Christianity. If that is true, are we no better than the Militant Islamic Extremist who do the same thing? How effective would we be at evangelism? How genuine would such conversions be when they are out of fear in this life, not a holy fear of God?





Please clarify on this position, whether you are advocating the church to use violence in the spread of the kingdom and the fulfillment of our Great Commission.

Henry,




Your response was long and I have to go to bed right now, but I will respond as soon as I can to what you've written. Meanwhile please read the response to David to continue to discern where I'm coming from. Goodnight gentlemen.

I'm sorry I haven't quite worked out the "reply" function on this thing so this response is to David.




David... your are interposing your emotions onto the word of God. Because you find it so hard to believe that God could be so "merciless" as you put it, you are acting as though the message of Jesus is the true message of God, whereas the Old Testament is either not as inspired (ie not from God as much as Jesus' statements in the gospels are from God), or are human interpositions. But the orthodox Christian position is that the entire word of God is from God, and not merely the statements of Christ in the gospels. Therefore it is the task of the exegete to reconcile any conceived or apparent facial differences. Jesus Christ is not opposed to the death penalty anyway, as I've demonstrated from the gospel of Matthew where he chides the Pharisees on interposing their traditions over and above the commandments concerning disobedience to mother and father.





If you read carefully the response by Henry Thomas you will also see where he has accurately identified many of the passages in the Old Testament that also teach non-retaliation and kindness to our enemies. Yet, the Old Testament is still filled with examples where God commends and approves of the saints of God putting the enemies of God to the sword as it were. For example, we see the prophets calling down fire on God's enemies, Joshua doing battle and exterminating the populations of reprobated villages, and Phinheas slaying wicked adversaries in a display of mighty and godly zeal. How then do we reconcile these things?





The key is (1) interpretation of the Biblical law, and (2) the recognition of the rights we possess as God's saints (that we are prophets, priests, and kings).





All Biblical law must be subordinated to the Greatest Commandment of all, which is to love God. When you love someone you seek his welfare. Therefore, if we truly seek God's welfare, we will do whatever is most expedient in the situation to extend the influence of His law and kingdom. If this means doing battle with the sword that is permissible.





Also, please notice the privilege of God's elect saints. As Revelation 1 declares, we are "kings" to God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. As kings, we are as Romans 13 declares, each "ministers of wrath". We have the option, as God's free men, to either execute justice or mercy depending on the exigencies of the situation and what would most expand God's kingdom.





In the early times of the apostles, when Christians were but a small band of men, it was not expedient to use physical violence, as the might of the Roman and Jewish authorities was too great. As a result, there was no point in using physical violence, it would only result in defeat. Christ wants us to be wise, and use the tactics most appropriate to the situation at hand in order to extend the influence of His Kingdom.





For a greater understanding of our role as Kings, who are co heirs with Jesus Christ, I refer you to the privileges of God's saints enunciated in Psalm 149.

"1 Praise the Lord. 2 Let Israel rejoice in their Maker; let the people of Zion be glad in their King. 3 Let them praise his name with dancing and make music to him with tambourine and harp. 4 For the Lord takes delight in his people; he crowns the humble with salvation. 5 Let the saints rejoice in this honor and sing for joy on their beds. 6 May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands, 7 to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples, 8 to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles with shackles of iron, 9 to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the glory of all his saints."

As Christ declares "All power has been given to Me on heaven and on earth (Eph added)" and we are to use whatever means are most conducive to the spreading of his law word.





It may often be the case that nonviolence and kindness ARE the best tactics for Christians to use in a given situation (as would be the case in most instances today where pagans have substantial control over the structures of civil government). Nevertheless, we should not rule out the use of the sword when it is appropriate.

Oppose Tyranny, you said in response to me, Do you know where the commandments to be kind to our enemies are located in the Old Testament? If you do not know this, then you need to read and carefully look at the entire scripture before you debate these issues. I have found three texts in the Old Testament that says to be kind to our enemies. The first is found in the Law, Exodus 23:4-5. The second is Proverbs 25:21-22, which Paul quotes in Romans 12:20 immediately after he quotes Deuteronomy 32:35 saying that only God can execute vengeance. The third is the prophets, Isaiah 50:6, which Jesus echoes in Matthew 5:38-42.




These three passages in the Old Covenant tell us to treat our enemies with the greatest contempt possible: love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and kindness. That will bring a greater shame upon the enemies of God for their condemnation by God will be justified even more so and their shame even greater.





In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus wasn't speaking so much about the Old Covenant Law as much as he was speaking about the Jewish oral tradition, what is today called the Mishnah. Jesus would start with, "You have heard it said..." and then after quoting the saying, "But I tell you..." In the Jewish culture, a rabbi never claimed his own authority but the authority of those who came before him. Jesus is claiming his own authority. Hence the observation mentioned by Matthew in Matthew 7:29 about Jesus teaching with authority unlike the scribes. He is changing the existing interpretation to match that of his own divine understanding of the Law by challenging the Pharisees' and Saducees' teachings.





You also said in response to me, If God's interests are threatened by evil men, we may harm our evil neighbor if we discern that we can get away with it without weakening the influence of God's kingdom (when those same evil men try to retaliate). Why then would the early church never retaliate against the Jews in Acts. In fact Acts 5:41 says that they were honored to suffer dishonor for Christ. The name of Christ was more honored and better defended by them suffering the offense rather than them retaliating for the unjust treatment they received at the hands of the Jews. Peter's first epistle teaches over and over in chapters 2-3 that we should be honored to suffer at the hands of evil men and to not retaliate for any injustice we might receive. Peter says in 1 Peter 2:23 that Christ did not retaliate, and who does not have a better reason to retaliate, but only trusted in God who judges justly. If Christ did not retaliate and exact vengeance on those who crucified him, why should we? Are we above Christ? Do we have an authority that not even Christ had or dared to exercise? I don't think so. I do not believe that we would be loving our neighbor like Christ did if we killed them.





Also, my question that raised this whole issue was not whether a Christian had the right to execute capital punishment, but whether the civil government could do so morally. Dave and I would both agree, as well as I think all of the authors here at this blog, that as individual Christians, we are not to take justice into our own hands but that God had ordained civil governments to execute God's justice here on earth. It sounds like you are saying that individual Christians have the right and authority to kill anyone they perceive as opposing the Kingdom of God. I think the better solution to killing someone directly opposing the Kingdom of Christ is to pray for their salvation. We should be like Ananias in Acts 9 and pray over the Saul's that we face and not kill him. But please clarify on whether you are advocating individual Christians having the right to execute justice in the form of capital punishment.

May we stone adulterers? The answer is absolutely!

And homosexuals? And rebellious children? Do you really believe that?




Do you really believe that we should be killing these people? So much for the mercy, grace, and forgiveness that Jesus taught...

Do you know where the commandments to be kind to our enemies are located in the Old Testament? If you do not know this, then you need to read and carefully look at the entire scripture before you debate these issues.

Do you try to justify that Biblically also?

May we stone adulterers? The answer is absolutely! Christ is very clear in Matthew 5

Maybe you never read this:

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.

Your interpretation of this passage fits nicely within your unique perspective on the world, but it doesn't really coincide with the realities of the text. And did you ever consider the fact that you are saying the exact same thing as those "self righteous" Pharisees?

Those who teach us to obey all of God's commandments will be called greatest in the Kingdom.

Actually, no, you should go back to your Bible:

Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

May we stone adulterers? The answer is absolutely! Christ is very clear in Matthew 5:

""Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Christians are to strive to implement God's entire law, including the judicial law. There are some laws that are not observed today as they were in Moses' time, because Christ has "fulfilled" them. IE Christ is a more perfect sacrifice, so we don't need to offer inferior sacrifices any longer. Also, Christ is a more perfect priesthood, so we don't need a levitical priesthood. But as far as the judicial law is concerned, Christ does not fulfill that prophetically in any way, it is not a symbol (shadow). It is a moral code instituted in society, so it remains for us today.





The verse in John where Christ forbids the woman to be stoned does not prove the position of those who want to do away with the judicial law. Christ in that verse does not attempt to declare the judicial law abolished, but merely indicates that in that instance He desired the woman to be set free, because it was more important in that situation to demonstrate to the Pharisees their own self righteousness. Therefore, this verse does not prove that Christ wanted the judicial law abolished. Nor could He want it abolished, since it is not a symbol of anything in His redemptive work.





In fact, Christ chides the Pharisees at another time for not instituting the judicial law lawfully, where He states:

"3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'" (Matthew 15)





The ultimate question for us is- if not God's law for the magistrate, whose law? Ultimately we must strive to implement God's judicial code, which is surely superior to any judicial code that a man can devise. Those who teach us to obey all of God's commandments will be called greatest in the Kingdom.

Henry Thomas,




If you look at the Old Testament you will see that the commandments Christ gave at the sermon on the mount are not new commandments. They are repeated in the Old Testament in numerous places, yet we find that the saints of the Old Testament did not always follow them. Sometimes, like Phineas, they took the sword and slew God's enemies. Other times, like Elijah and the Syrians, they fed their enemies. It depended on the situation.





Do you know where the commandments to be kind to our enemies are located in the Old Testament? If you do not know this, then you need to read and carefully look at the entire scripture before you debate these issues.





All commandments are to be subordinated to the commandment to love God above all things, including our neighbor. If God's interests are threatened by evil men, we may harm our evil neighbor if we discern that we can get away with it without weakening the influence of God's kingdom (when those same evil men try to retaliate).

Oppose Tyranny,




Have you considered Paul's words in Romans 12:19-21 where he says let vengeance be saved for God and his wrath alone and that instead we must feed our enemy and give him drink, which is far worse than to actually repay him with evil? Romans 12:21 says to repay evil with good. Let God sort out how wrath and revenge be dealt out. For he can do it perfectly. We are to love our neighbors out of our love for God. But tell me, how can you evangelize those whom you are killing out of vengeance? Matthew 28:18-20 is going to be very difficult for you if you are destroying God's enemies. Not to mention, Dave is right. We are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. We are to love our neighbor, even the dreaded "Samaritans" as Jesus points out in Luke 10.





Before you say someone here does not know the Bible, make sure you do to. We all here are not perfect in our knowledge of the Scriptures. Therefore we are all still striving together to learn. That is one reason why we are at this blog, to learn the Scriptures and what God teaches through them and commands us to do. Also, I wait for your answer to Dave's question, should homosexuals and adulterers and even rebellious children be put to death?

The command to love your enemies is not a universal commandment but is only to be applied to those situations where it is most expedient.

Says who? You? How do you get to decide about what are universal commands and what are not? Can you give ANY Biblical evidence to support your baseless assertions?

Let us rather do as Christ bids us, and use His two greatest commands as our greatest commands.

You conveniently ignore the second command - love your neighbors. And who is our neighbor? Our enemies as well as our friends.

Instead, you pick out certain verses and make them the supreme commands to follow, and ignore the rest of scripture.

Wait...you are saying that I ignore the rest of the Bible? You are saying that we need to focus on the two greatest commands. Yet you completely ignore the second command.




By the way...you never answered my question. You say that the OT law is still valid today. Then answer this question. Do you believe that homosexuals and adulterers should receive the death penalty?

Oppose Tyranny,




Go back and look at what James praised her for in his epistle. James does not praise her lie but rather he sending the spies out another way.

People fail to understand that God's commandments are not universal rules to be applied to every situation. They are always to be modified by the two greatest commandments!




Christ said "resist not the evil person". But obviously this, like the rest of the commands, is not of universal application, or the Apostle Paul would not have smitten Elymas with a curse in Acts 13:9.





God's people are to do whatever is expedient in the situation to advance God's kingdom, out of love of God.





Likewise, Rahab lied and deceived in order to save Joshua's spies; which is technically forbidden by Leviticus 19:11. Yet God justified her as the Epistle of James declares.





O corrupt generation! You do not even know your scripture!

Unless you can find out how a Christ fulfilled (ie made more perfect) and Old Testament command (ie being a more perfect priest, a more perfect sacrifice etc..), that command remains valid for today.

So do you believe that homosexuals and adulterers should receive the death penalty?

When God's Kingdom is threatened and the best option on the table is to use weapons to slay the enemies of God, that is a viable and moral option.

You seem to be quite confused about who our neighbor is. Jesus is very clear about who our neighbor is. It is not just those that we like, or those that are Christians. Our neighbor is everybody, including our worst enemies.




So we are called to love our neighbors, meaning that we are called to love those we like and hate, those that help us and those that persecute us. We are called to love our enemies, not "use the sword and slay the enemy."

Yea! Oppose tyranny by killing people!!




Please tell me how loving God will lead me to "slay" people? I would love to see some examples on this one...





And one more thing - our enemies are our neighbors, remember? It is pretty difficult to love your enemies so much that you should kill them, eh?

Christ is extremely clear- "think not that I have come to abolish the law... if anyone teaches to disobey the least of my commandments, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." None of the Old Testament law is unobserved today except those that symbolize the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and they were not "abolished", they were fulfilled! Unless you can find out how a Christ fulfilled (ie made more perfect) and Old Testament command (ie being a more perfect priest, a more perfect sacrifice etc..), that command remains valid for today. The commandments concerning civil ministers continue to be valid commandments, and they are ministers of God appointed to execute His wrath and judgment. All Christians are kings according to the book of Revelation and likewise have authority from God to slay His enemies when circumstances permit (Psalm 149-150) (Revelation 1). The commandments of God must all be subordinate to the two great commands to love God and love neighbor.




When God's Kingdom is threatened and the best option on the table is to use weapons to slay the enemies of God, that is a viable and moral option. The key is to use the option that best advances God's kingdom at any particular point in time. If the enemies of God are powerful, then "turning the other cheek" is the best option to use so as to avoid as much damage to God's cause as possible. But if God's Kingdom is powerful, the sword may be used to crush satanic rebellions.

People on this message board are having trouble sorting out the law of God. God's commandments are not intended to be followed the precise same way in every circumstance. All laws are to be subordinated to the two great commandments. Thus, when love of neighbor and God call for something other than "turning the other cheek", we must use the sword and slay the enemy etc in order to advance God's kingdom upon earth.

it is when they get into trouble and want out.

many people want to use the Turn The Other Cheek line of thinking into that

I have never heard anyone use that passage as an excuse not to punish someone.

Actually, I was making sure that you weren't wanting that and that many people want to use the Turn The Other Cheek line of thinking into that, or at least to get them off of the hook and that we need to remember that if we always turn the other cheek, then we have an even bigger problem.

I don't know where this "killing" talk came from

Where did killing come in? Maybe due to the fact that you are using it to justify the death penalty?

But wouldn't it be an injustice to sit by and let people still sin?

Injustice? No...not really. God determines what our punishment is for sin, not man. But that is different than what we are talking about anyway. We are talking about using killing someone as a punishment for killing someone, not sin.

My point is simply this, there is a time when we must administer justice, whether by death penalty or by some other means.

There is no question that there are times that justice needs to be administered. But you do not administer justice by other unjust means, do you? Jesus made it very clear what he thought of the eye for an eye mindset.




I think this is the problem. You think that I am saying that people should not be punished, and I have said nothing of the sort. I fully believe that people should be punished, just not using unjust means. And I strongly believe that death is not a just or Biblical means of punishment. Most of your arguments have been in the context of whether or not we have the right, or even call, to administer justice, and that is not something that I am arguing about. This is not about our right to punish but instead how we choose to punish.

Hold on there tiger. Let me make a clarification that I think needs to be made. Jesus did not say to kill them. I am saying that removing someone from the flock because of sin is justice. But they are excommunicated so that they might repent and return. I am not wanting to kill anyone there. I don't know where this "killing" talk came from and I'm sorry for not making myself clear that church discipline is not killing. I assumed that you would have had in mind what the biblical texts said about it. Sorry for leading you way off into left field and thinking I wanted to kill people who did not repent. I would have died a long time ago if that were true.




But wouldn't it be an injustice to sit by and let people still sin? Wouldn't we be guilty of not loving our neighbor if we did not call people, saved or unsaved, to repentance? That would be utterly sinful. My point is simply this, there is a time when we must administer justice, whether by death penalty or by some other means. Turn the other cheek is important to this debate but it cannot be taken to an extreme where we do not ever punish sin when called to do so. That's it.

So then are you saying that Jesus should not have protested the injustice of his trial when he did and should have turned the other cheek?

Protesting injustice is different than responding with an injustice, don't you think? I think you are severely misinterpreting what Jesus said when he said turn the other cheek. Jesus is not saying that we should ignore injustice, but instead he is speaking of we respond to injustice. He prefaced the statement by saying that an "eye for an eye" was not a valid response to injustice.

Jesus charges his church to discipline its members.

Sure...but that is very different than killing its members, is it not? I do not find one instance in the NT where it says that the the church should kill its members as a form of discipline.

I administer justice with a view of bringing that person back into the fold through repentance.

This does not make any sense. You take away any opportunity for repentance when you kill a person.

So then are you saying that Jesus should not have protested the injustice of his trial when he did and should have turned the other cheek? I want to follow Jesus' example. When there is injustice in this world, I will not turn the other cheek. Jesus did not, and neither will I.




Never once have I said to not take this command seriously, nor am I, nor will I. Nor will you ever hear me say that about any command of Scripture. All commands are to be taken seriously and to be practiced, including to administer justice when commanded by God. That is all I am saying.





The application of this command is limited when there comes a point that we as Christians must exercise justice, not vengeance. Jesus charges his church to discipline its members. I am making a case built on the words of Jesus that we must remember the times when turning the cheek is not what is called for in that situation. I do not exact revenge, I administer justice with a view of bringing that person back into the fold through repentance.

That command only goes so far in its application.

I was thinking a bit more about this statement that you made. Isn't this a really dangerous statement to make?




Many have said the same exact same thing about the Sermon on the Mount, right? "Jesus wasn't really serious about those things, was he?" Many Christians have decided to ingore the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount for the exact same reason that you give - "it only goes so far" or "it can't be literal for all of us, all the time, in today's society." And I think that is a really, really dangerous comment to make.





You can argue that the meaning is different based on cultural context, but I believe it is much more difficult to argue that a command from Jesus is limited because the ramifications may be something that we do not like.

On what grounds do you establish the passage in Romans 13 as vv.1-10 as opposed to vv.1-7? I am wanting to be absolutely sure that is part of the context that must impact the regulations about government.

I would argue that you would need to show that the pericope should be stopped at vs. 7, not vs. 10. There is no reason, based on my understanding of that text, to stop at vs. 7.

I would ask if you knew what first century slavery was like.

I am very aware at the differences between slavery in the Ancient Near East and slavery in the United Sates. But that is really a strawman unrelated to what I am saying. I am not talking about a Biblical justification for slavery. I am talking about slaves escaping their "masters" and no submitting to the authorities.

When Jesus was struck by the high priest, as one person on Witherington's blog points out, does not turn the other cheek but protests the assault as injustice.

Protesting the assault as injustice is quite different than hitting back, don't you think?

That command only goes so far in its application.

I think you would have a hard time justifying this Biblically.

Jesus never once condemned the actual act but was really responding as to their motives in what they were doing.

I believe that he clearly did condemn the act - he essentially said that we all deserve death, and whoever does not deserve death is free to give out such a punishment.

The forgiveness is only to be extended when they repent though.

It does? I don't recall Jesus saying, "forgive 70 times 7, but only when they repent."

But if you say that the Old Testament was another system, then you must say the New Testament exist under a different system than exists today. But that doesn't rule out the New Testament, neither does it rule out the Old Testament.

I never said it did rule out the OT. And it is obvious that the NT is under a different system than we are under today. But what it means is that we need to understand what these teachings meant in the context that they were given.

On what grounds do you establish the passage in Romans 13 as vv.1-10 as opposed to vv.1-7? I am wanting to be absolutely sure that is part of the context that must impact the regulations about government.




Before I respond to the issue of slavery, I would ask if you knew what first century slavery was like. Many slaves in those days were better off than most free people were. So that would be a difficult question to answer based on Roman slavery. You might shudder at this but after learning about it. You might take note that no biblical writer ever condemns slavery. Roman slavery is so different from what we think of as slaves that it makes a big difference in reading the NT. However the slaves in the United States and Britain in the colonial and pre-civil war eras were wrong and the slaves should not have been enslaved like that at all.





When Jesus was struck by the high priest, as one person on Witherington's blog points out, does not turn the other cheek but protests the assault as injustice. If all were to turn the other cheek, no one could be punished for anything because we are turning the other cheek. That command only goes so far in its application. No one could be fired for anything, no one could go to jail even. But I'm sure you already knew that and weren't going there.





If you go back and read John 7:53-8:11, Jesus never once condemned the actual act but was really responding as to their motives in what they were doing. They were bringing her there to trap him in a contradiction to the Law of Moses. So I don't how that relates to this discussion.





The forgiveness is only to be extended when they repent though. Also if they are persistent in their sin, Jesus says to cast them out. Now that isn't a justification of death but however it does say that there is a time when we must punish and grace must no longer be given in a forgiveness way but must exist as discipline. But I know this is not a pro-death penalty argument.





To the lesser crime of rebellious kids, I think we should reinstate that punishment ;). May be Wal-Mart might be more bearable (I say that jokingly). All that you say about the OT from what I have studied is very true. But if you say that the Old Testament was another system, then you must say the New Testament exist under a different system than exists today. But that doesn't rule out the New Testament, neither does it rule out the Old Testament. Otherwise you will end up going down a dangerous path both in reading the NT and in canonization issues and such.