Your opinion on God’s Law.

[Derf]

Jesus and the Apostles went to their deaths without lifting a finger against anyone.

Not true. Peter cut off a man's ear, and Jesus drove money changers from the temple with a whip. I'd say both took at least one finger, if not several.

Jesus was sinless, having lived a perfect life.

It would have been interesting if one of Jesus' brothers had been murdered. Would Jesus have been required to take up the mantel of avenger of blood, seeing that he did not break any part of the law? I don't know the answer to this question. It seems like the commandment to Noah was pretty specific, and I don't know of anything prior to Jesus that rescinded the command to Noah, do you? Jesus' interaction with the adulterous woman shows us that we can forgive, and possibly that we are not to participate in capital punishment, though that can (and should) be debated, based on Paul's acknowledgement of the state's responsibility to "bear the sword".

Is this a part of the new covenant and the preaching of the gospel?

I'm not sure what "this" is referring to in your question.

I know of the new covenant and I am a new covenant believer. I know that somehow the new covenant is different from the old covenant. Is this in that the people broke the old covenant although God was a husband to them?

Again, I'm not sure what "this" is referring to in your question.

You see that with courts and cities of refuge the judge is different than the avenger of blood. Is the new covenant different from the old covenant? In what way is it different?

If a new covenant believer observes the old covenant, both being about love of God and your neighbor, there is love... is there things like restitution and capital punishment or is it all about unconditional forgiveness on our part and on God's in saving us and giving us eternal life?

Romans 6:23 NASB.

These are good questions. Let me ask you this way: if you were to sin by taking taking or breaking something of your neighbor's, how would you then love your neighbor after that?

My answer would be to make restitution--to replace or fix that which was taken or broken.

What if, but taking or breaking that thing of your neighbor's, you not only caused the loss of that thing, but also caused a hardship in his business or his family's needs? Maybe then you would want to give more than just 1x restitution. If you took or killed a sheep, maybe you would need to give back 2 sheep. If you caused someone's electricity to get cut off by crashing into their electric pole, you might need to both restore their electricity AND give them some money to replace all of their spoiled groceries in the refrigerator.

Neither the gospel nor the Torah are about just the vertical relationship with God, but also with the horizontal relationships with our fellow humans.

Avenging murder seems to be based on the vertical, while prohibiting murder seems to be based on the horizontal.

 

[meshak]

Hi Meshak.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm saying scripture says these things. Are you saying scripture does not say these things?

How you are reading is what I am questioning.

You seem to advocate His people are obligated to arm.

Christians are Jesus' followers. I know Jacob is focusing what Jesus teaches. He is not disregarding Jesus' word.

This is his thread.

When we read the OT, Christians should take heed of His teachings.

Jesus says to "love your enemy".

so arming is out of the question for His followers.

 

[john w]

Jesus says to "love your enemy".

so arming is out of the question for His followers.

"Jesus says" to sell you have. So do it.

Good day to you, sir. You are on ignore/un-ignore. Blessings.

 

[Jacob]

Not true. Peter cut off a man's ear, and Jesus drove money changers from the temple with a whip. I'd say both took at least one finger, if not several.

Jesus never sinned, and neither Jesus nor the apostles killed anyone. Jesus actually healed the man Peter injured.

John 18:36 NASB - Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

It would have been interesting if one of Jesus' brothers had been murdered. Would Jesus have been required to take up the mantel of avenger of blood, seeing that he did not break any part of the law? I don't know the answer to this question. It seems like the commandment to Noah was pretty specific, and I don't know of anything prior to Jesus that rescinded the command to Noah, do you? Jesus' interaction with the adulterous woman shows us that we can forgive, and possibly that we are not to participate in capital punishment, though that can (and should) be debated, based on Paul's acknowledgement of the state's responsibility to "bear the sword".

This is an interesting idea being that I do not bear the sword.

I'm not sure what "this" is referring to in your question.

Jesus and the Apostles went to their deaths without lifting a finger against anyone. Jesus was sinless, having lived a perfect life. Is this (that they didn't fight or defend themselves, Jesus being perfect and without sin and loving until death) a part of the new covenant and the preaching of the gospel?

Again, I'm not sure what "this" is referring to in your question.
These are good questions. Let me ask you this way: if you were to sin by taking taking or breaking something of your neighbor's, how would you then love your neighbor after that?

We shouldn't do so, but we should always make right any wrong, as best we can.

My answer would be to make restitution--to replace or fix that which was taken or broken.

What if, but taking or breaking that thing of your neighbor's, you not only caused the loss of that thing, but also caused a hardship in his business or his family's needs? Maybe then you would want to give more than just 1x restitution. If you took or killed a sheep, maybe you would need to give back 2 sheep. If you caused someone's electricity to get cut off by crashing into their electric pole, you might need to both restore their electricity AND give them some money to replace all of their spoiled groceries in the refrigerator.

The Torah specifies what to do.

Neither the gospel nor the Torah are about just the vertical relationship with God, but also with the horizontal relationships with our fellow humans.

Avenging murder seems to be based on the vertical, while prohibiting murder seems to be based on the horizontal.

Have you ever watched End of the Spear? In Jesus we can come to a place where we (anyone and everyone) are not killing in return for killing.

 

[Derf]

How you are reading is what I am questioning.

You seem to advocate His people are obligated to arm.

Christians are Jesus' followers. I know Jacob is focusing what Jesus teaches. He is not disregarding Jesus' word.

This is his thread.

When we read the OT, Christians should take heed of His teachings.

Jesus says to "love your enemy".

so arming is out of the question for His followers.

Jacob was asking what we thought about God's law ("opinion" was the word he used). So we have been talking about God's law and what we think of it. My position is that God's law was never bad, and that some things changed with the sacrifice of Jesus. Some things did not. I also believe that the law NEVER saved anyone--that salvation has always been by the blood of Jesus Christ.

God's law allows for arming, but doesn't necessarily require it. The OT points out that weaponry is not sufficient to keep you safe, that sometimes God Himself will bring an invading army to overwhelm your defenses, and that instead of horses and chariots (or guns and ammo), we should trust in the Lord (Ps 20:7).

Christians are told to love our enemies, but that doesn't forbid arming. Jesus told His disciples to arm themselves in Luke 22:36 "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Did Jesus stop loving His enemies for even one second while He made that statement? Did Jesus not really mean what He said? I'd say no to both of those questions.

So arming is definitely NOT out of the question for His followers.

I understand that some Christians believe we are to be total pacifists. I respect that position, but I don't hold to it. Some Christians believe we should wage physical war on Muslims. I respect that position, but I don't hold to it. I believe we have a responsibility to protect our nation, which includes our neighbors.

Look at it this way: If no Christians are ever to bear arms, then the state, which Paul says is supposed to bear the sward, would always be in the hands of non-Christians. Is that really the best thing for our nation, or for our neighbor, to have only unbelievers in the seat of power, in government, in law enforcement, in the military? You don't really love your neighbor if you think so.

 

[meshak]

Look at it this way: If no Christians are ever to bear arms, then the state, which Paul says is supposed to bear the sward,

Stop it there. where did Paul says to bear the sword?

reference please.

 

[Derf]

Jesus never sinned, and neither Jesus nor the apostles killed anyone. Jesus actually healed the man Peter injured.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Before you said Jesus and the disciples never lifted a finger against anyone. See below where you quoted yourself. I didn't say they killed anyone. But who actually killed Ananias and Sapphira? Was that ok with you, or did God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/Peter do something wrong in your eyes?

John 18:36 NASB - Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

This is an interesting idea being that I do not bear the sword.

Neither does "the state", in reality. Only people can bear arms. So somebody, an actual person has to do it. Would you rather Christians or non-Christians be the ones to do it?

Jesus and the Apostles went to their deaths without lifting a finger against anyone. Jesus was sinless, having lived a perfect life. Is this (that they didn't fight or defend themselves, Jesus being perfect and without sin and loving until death) a part of the new covenant and the preaching of the gospel? We shouldn't do so, but we should always make right any wrong, as best we can.The Torah specifies what to do.Have you ever watched End of the Spear? In Jesus we can come to a place where we (anyone and everyone) are not killing in return for killing.

I've been meaning to watch "End of the Spear". Thanks for the reminder. But I know the story well enough, through Elizabeth Elliot, Rachel Saint, Marge Saint, etc.

I'm not disagreeing that we don't need to take revenge for everything or possibly anything. I'm just pointing out that part of the Torah you say specifies what to do also specifies the role and limits of the avenger of blood. You seem to think it doesn't apply. Maybe it doesn't today, but maybe it does. Whatever the case now, it used to apply. Was it bad then? Or was it good? If it was bad, was God bad to mandate it? If it was good, why is it bad now?

And will it be good again when Jesus judges the world? As in Revelation:
Revelation 6:10
and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

Revelation 16:5-7
And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it." And I heard the altar saying, "Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments."

Revelation 18:6
Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her.

Will Jesus be lifting a finger then??



And what do you think of this passage: Psalm 137:8-9
O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

 

[Derf]

Stop it there. where did Paul says to bear the sword?

reference please.

It wasn't a command to bear the sword, it was a statement that the state (or "rulers") bear the sword as ministers of God.

Romans 13:3-5

3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.…

Are Christians never to be rulers?

 

[meshak]

Are Christians never to be rulers?

Nope,

Jesus says His followers are not of the world. Rulers are politicians. they are elected by their people. of course some are dictators but they are rulers nontheless too.

Politics are of the world, not of God.

His followers should not get involved with the politics. The world will take care of itself.

Jesus also says let the dead bury their own dead. the world is spiritually dead.

You are reading Romans incorrectly because it does not harmonize with Jesus' word.

 

[Jacob]

Now you're moving the goalposts. Before you said Jesus and the disciples never lifted a finger against anyone.

We were talking about the subject of killing, that they did not kill anyone. They did not lift a finger against anyone. As for Peter this would be the question of when he was converted, and as for the apostles we could say all after Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. I am against violence, and even self-defense (here I have had no training).

See below where you quoted yourself. I didn't say they killed anyone. But who actually killed Ananias and Sapphira?

God.

Was that ok with you, or did God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/Peter do something wrong in your eyes?

No. I believe Peter did something wrong.

Neither does "the state", in reality. Only people can bear arms. So somebody, an actual person has to do it.

God can. It is not up to man to do so.

Would you rather Christians or non-Christians be the ones to do it?
I've been meaning to watch "End of the Spear". Thanks for the reminder. But I know the story well enough, through Elizabeth Elliot, Rachel Saint, Marge Saint, etc.

I'm not disagreeing that we don't need to take revenge for everything or possibly anything. I'm just pointing out that part of the Torah you say specifies what to do also specifies the role and limits of the avenger of blood. You seem to think it doesn't apply.

If it does I am not sure how it applies, but I accept all of it.

Maybe it doesn't today, but maybe it does.

Correct.

Whatever the case now, it used to apply. Was it bad then? Or was it good? If it was bad, was God bad to mandate it? If it was good, why is it bad now?

I don't know that it is bad now and I don't know that it was bad then. I don't know if I see it as a present day reality for Christians (who live as God wants us to live as humans).

And will it be good again when Jesus judges the world? As in Revelation:
Revelation 6:10
and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

Revelation 16:5-7
And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it." And I heard the altar saying, "Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments."

Revelation 18:6
Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her.

Will Jesus be lifting a finger then??

Interesting translation to your verses here. I am not sure of Jesus' "lifting a finger" then.

And what do you think of this passage: Psalm 137:8-9
O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

I'm not sure.

 

[Derf]

Nope,

Jesus says His followers are not of the world. Rulers are politicians. they are elected by their people. of course some are dictators but they are rulers nontheless too.

Politics are of the world, not of God.

His followers should not get involved with the politics. The world will take care of itself.

Jesus also says let the dead bury their own dead. the world is spiritually dead.

You are reading Romans incorrectly because it does not harmonize with Jesus' word.

Maybe you can enlighten me on how Romans is in disharmony with Jesus' word?

But I'm gone for the day, so take your time.

 

[Derf]

I believe Peter did something wrong.

What did he do wrong?

It is not up to man to do so.If it does I am not sure how it applies, but I accept all of it.

Was it ever up to man to avenge anyone? If so, when did this apply?

Heading out, so won't respond further until tomorrow, probably. Have a good evening.

 

[Jacob]

What did he do wrong?

He cut off an ear.

Was it ever up to man to avenge anyone?

Not the way you are saying it, if at all. The Law speaks of something, but we haven't discussed how this would take place, I only pointed out that, courts and a judge, even then would come before the death is avenged, and never by personal vengeance. That is, no one escapes God even if a person were to escape human law courts.

If so, when did this apply?

Heading out, so won't respond further until tomorrow, probably. Have a good evening.

Thank you for your time today. I will first enjoy the rest of my day.

 

[meshak]

Maybe you can enlighten me on how Romans is in disharmony with Jesus' word?

.

I am not saying the letter of Roman disharmonize with Jesus.

How you are reading is wrong.

 

[Derf]

I am not saying the letter of Roman disharmonize with Jesus.

How you are reading is wrong.

OK. Can you show me how I'm reading it wrong?

 

[meshak]

OK. Can you show me how I'm reading it wrong?

I just told you. The New Testament writers all know about Jesus' position. they knew Jesus was pacifists.

But you don't seem to take Jesus was a pacifist.

That's why I am telling you, you are reading it wrong.

I ask you which part is indicating approving of His follower have obligation to bear arm specifially?

We can go from there.

Then I can point out exactly how you are reading it wrong.

 

[Derf]

I just told you. The New Testament writers all know about Jesus' position. they knew Jesus was pacifists.

But you don't seem to take Jesus was a pacifist.

That's why I am telling you, you are reading it wrong.

I ask you which part is indicating approving of His follower have obligation to bear arm specifially?

We can go from there.

Then I can point out exactly how you are reading it wrong.

Was Jesus a pacifist? How do you know that? Claiming all the NT writers agreed with you isn't sufficient--you need to show they agreed with you. I gave a quote from a New Testament writer (Paul) that said the "authority" is given the responsibility to "bear the sword"--by God Himself. Is Jesus more of a pacifist than God?

If Jesus is God, then you can't say one is pacifist and one is not. So, here are a few passages showing God's (and Jesus's) unpacifistic nature:

[Isa 63:1-4 KJV] 1 Who [is] this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this [that is] glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. 2 Wherefore [art thou] red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? 3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people [there was] none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. 4 For the day of vengeance [is] in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. (Some believe this refers to Jesus' second coming.)

[Jos 5:13-14 KJV] 13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, [Art] thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14 And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? (notice that Joshua worshiped this "man"--many believe this to be a preincarnate appearance of Jesus.)

[Isa 13:3-5 KJV] 3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, [even] them that rejoice in my highness. 4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. 5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, [even] the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. ("Sanctified ones" is also translated "holy ones" in some translations)

[Isa 41:2 KJV] 2 Who raised up the righteous [man] from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made [him] rule over kings? he gave [them] as the dust to his sword, [and] as driven stubble to his bow.

[Isa 42:13-14, 24-25 KJV] 13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. 14 I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, [and] refrained myself: [now] will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once. ... 24 Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law. 25 Therefore he hath poured upon him the fury of his anger, and the strength of battle: and it hath set him on fire round about, yet he knew not; and it burned him, yet he laid [it] not to heart.

[Isa 45:1 KJV] 1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; (Cyrus, called the Lord's "anointed", here, defeated Babylon in battle)

[Joe 3:9-13, 20-21 ESV] 9 Proclaim this among the nations: Consecrate for war; stir up the mighty men. Let all the men of war draw near; let them come up. 10 Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, "I am a warrior." 11 Hasten and come, all you surrounding nations, and gather yourselves there. Bring down your warriors, O LORD. 12 Let the nations stir themselves up and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; for there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations. 13 Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the winepress is full. The vats overflow, for their evil is great. ... 20 But Judah shall be inhabited forever, and Jerusalem to all generations. 21 I will avenge their blood, blood I have not avenged, for the LORD dwells in Zion."

But what about Jesus during His earthly ministry? You were looking for an "obligation" to bear arms specifically? Here it is--a command from Jesus to go buy swords:

[Luk 22:36, 38 ESV] 36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. ... 38 And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." (One of these swords is no doubt the one that Peter used to cut off the man's ear in the Garden of Gethsemane. If Jesus were a true pacifist, He wouldn't have allowed Peter to carry a sword in the first place.)

All that doesn't mean that we are to war with the world like the world does. Our fight is not against flesh and blood. And I don't believe Jesus was advocating that all believers need to be armed. You've misunderstood me in your passion.

All I'm saying is that there is a place for Christians to be armed, to protect our nation, and our cities, and our families under the proper authority. And to suggest that Christians should never participate in either law enforcement or national defense is to say that human life, which is made in God's image, is unimportant--which is in direct conflict with both the greatest and the second greatest commandments.

[Ecc 3:1, 8 ESV] 1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: ... 8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

 

[Derf]

He cut off an ear.

Agreed. I thought you were talking about Peter's role in the Ananias and Sapphira story.

Not the way you are saying it, if at all.

Maybe this is where we are having trouble communicating. How do you think I am saying it?

The Law speaks of something, but we haven't discussed how this would take place, I only pointed out that, courts and a judge, even then would come before the death is avenged, and never by personal vengeance. That is, no one escapes God even if a person were to escape human law courts.

No disagreement here. The courts/judges (hopefully righteous ones*) are necessary. I think I said that before. And if the role of the avenger of blood is sanctioned by the courts (as it was in the Torah), then it shouldn't lead to continuing retribution. The idea there is that if the avenger of blood executes the murderer, it's not murder, it's the way God intended murder to be dealt with (according to the Torah).

*Righteous judges would hopefully be more likely to come from Christian society rather than from those that don't know God. So it would be Christians that would sometimes need to condemn a man for murder, just as it was the righteous judges in Israel that would have had to enact the Torah regulations, not only for punishment for murder, but also for punishment for the other capital crimes, like kidnapping, rape, incest, bestiality, etc. If Jesus denied the death penalty in all cases, as some say, then Paul was contradicting him when he said the "authority" bears the sword as God's minister.

 

[Jacob]

Agreed. I thought you were talking about Peter's role in the Ananias and Sapphira story.
Maybe this is where we are having trouble communicating. How do you think I am saying it?
No disagreement here. The courts/judges (hopefully righteous ones*) are necessary. I think I said that before. And if the role of the avenger of blood is sanctioned by the courts (as it was in the Torah), then it shouldn't lead to continuing retribution. The idea there is that if the avenger of blood executes the murderer, it's not murder, it's the way God intended murder to be dealt with (according to the Torah).

*Righteous judges would hopefully be more likely to come from Christian society rather than from those that don't know God. So it would be Christians that would sometimes need to condemn a man for murder, just as it was the righteous judges in Israel that would have had to enact the Torah regulations, not only for punishment for murder, but also for punishment for the other capital crimes, like kidnapping, rape, incest, bestiality, etc. If Jesus denied the death penalty in all cases, as some say, then Paul was contradicting him when he said the "authority" bears the sword as God's minister.

A few comments here.

You will need to look into the capital offenses to see what they are and what their punishment is. As for avenging murder, murder in return is not an option it is still murder. Killing after the courts have convicted is not an option either. It is murder. I hope you can see this. No one is to take matters into their own hands.

 

[Derf]

A few comments here.

You will need to look into the capital offenses to see what they are and what their punishment is. As for avenging murder, murder in return is not an option it is still murder. Killing after the courts have convicted is not an option either. It is murder. I hope you can see this. No one is to take matters into their own hands.

So, how do "the courts" carry out a death penalty? Is that murder?

And you still don't understand what I'm saying--It isn't "taking matters into their own hands" if the courts sanction it.