(Law)
Matthew 5:18 did not mean that heaven and earth had to pass away before the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments could be abolished, but that Jesus Christ had to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming (Luke 24:44-46; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53) before He could abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (for both Jews and Gentiles, of all times) on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
(Re: *Full preterism? / If the old heaven and earth have not passed, would not we still be under the Old Covenant Mosaic law?)
No, for the "old" heaven and earth perished at the time of Noah's Flood (2 Peter 3:5-6), which was over 1,000 years before the Old Covenant Mosaic law was established in Exodus. The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments was abolished at the moment that Jesus Christ died on the Cross (Matthew 27:50-51a, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19), which was the same moment that He brought the New Covenant into effect (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 10:19-20, Matthew 27:51a). Matthew 5:18 refers to the literal heaven and earth "which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which will be literally burned up in our future (2 Peter 3:7-12).
(See the "Full preterism?" section of 2 Peter 3:10 below. Also, see the prior section here)
~
(Re: Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 changing the law)
Note that nothing requires that the principle of Matthew 5:18 was in effect at the time that the book of Ezekiel was written down in the sixth century BC.
(See Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 above)
~
(Re: Does Matthew 5:18's use of "or" require that Revelation 13:17's "or" means that the future Antichrist's number will be the same as his name?)
No, for just as the fact that a jot can take the place of a tittle does not mean that jots and tittles are the same thing (Matthew 5:18); and just as the fact that service to one master (mammon) can wrongly take the place of service to another master (God) does not that mean serving mammon is the same as serving God (Matthew 6:24); so the fact that non-Christians and apostates in our future will receive a mark on their body of either the Antichrist's name "or" a representation of the gematrial number of his name (666) (Revelation 13:17-18) does not mean that his name and the gematrial number of his name are the same thing.
(See Revelation 13:18 below)
--
*Matthew 5:19-20 / *Mt. 5:19 -
This refers to the New Covenant/New Testament commandments/sayings (Matthew 5:19, Matthew 7:24-29) which Jesus, as the Christ (Matthew 5:17b, Luke 24:44-46), was just about to give in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29), and which New Covenant commandments "exceed in righteousness" (Matthew 5:20 to 7:29) the (now) abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19), which was kept by the Pharisees. Compare what the apostle Paul says about himself in Philippians 3:5-14.
~
(Re: So are we now under a *stricter law?)
Yes, for Jesus Christ shows in the Sermon on the Mount how His New Covenant, Christian commandments are stricter than the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade murder (Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:13), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even calling people names (Matthew 5:22). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade adultery (Matthew 5:27, Exodus 20:14), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even looking at another woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1-2), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids it (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), except for a single exemption granted only to husbands who discover that their newlywed wife is not a virgin, but had committed fornication (Matthew 19:9).
Jesus Christ also shows in the Sermon on the Mount that while His New Covenant, Christian law is stricter than the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, at the same time it is also more merciful. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required taking an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38, Deuteronomy 19:21), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required hatred for one's enemies (Matthew 5:43, Deuteronomy 23:6), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), required, for example, that adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10), while Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:4-11). And, for another example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required that anyone who does any work on the sabbath is to be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), while Jesus allowed His disciples to work on the sabbath, and said that they were guiltless (Matthew 12:1-8), just as Jesus Himself worked on the sabbath (John 5:17-18).
So in obeying Jesus Christ's New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29, John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:37), Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are both more merciful and loving, and also exceed in righteousness, those who mistakenly try to keep the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
(Re: Was not the Sermon on the Mount from the Jewish *oral law?)
Today, the Jewish oral law is a written law, codified in the Mishna and Talmud. So can you quote from where you feel that the Mishna and Talmud teach what Jesus Christ teaches in the Sermon on the Mount? Also, the Mishna and Talmud were written down after the Sermon on the Mount was written down in Matthew chapters 5 to 7. For the book of Matthew was written down in the first century AD, whereas the Mishna was not written down until about 200 AD, and the Talmud was not written down until about 500 AD. So even if any quotations can be found in the Mishna or Talmud which are similar to ideas in the Sermon on the Mount, the ideas in the quotations could have been derived from the Sermon on the Mount.
Also, if the Jewish oral law taught what Jesus Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount, then the Jewish oral law contradicted the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, as written down in the Old Testament. For what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount contradicted the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law...
(See the "stricter" section above, from the last sentence of paragraph 1 to the end of paragraph 2)
Also, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews have different views on the age and binding nature of the Jewish oral law. So even religious Jews are not in agreement with regard to the oral law.
~
(Re: As a *rabbi, would not Jesus have known the oral law, which was passed down orally from master to disciple?)
Note that Jesus Christ got His teachings not by being the disciple of a Jewish rabbi, or by hearing any man-made oral law, but by hearing directly from God the Father (John 12:49-50). Also, Christians must be careful not to be deceived into giving heed to Jewish rabbis who contradict what the Bible teaches (Titus 1:14; 2 Timothy 4:2-4). Also, no Christian should ever let anyone call him "Rabbi" or "Master" (Teacher). For Jesus Christ Himself is the only Rabbi and Master (Teacher) of all Christians (whether Jews or Gentiles), who are all brothers and sisters in Christ (Matthew 23:8,10).
--
*Matthew 5:32 / *Mt. 5:32 -
See Mark 10:11 below.
--
*Matthew 5:39 / *Mt. 5:39 -
(Re: *Violence)
Under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), whereas killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3).
But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They are to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44). And this means that they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).
It is the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).
(See paragraphs 2-3 of Luke 22:36b below)
~
(Re: But are not pacifists cowards?)
No, for it does not take much courage to pull out a gun and shoot someone dead with no harm to yourself. Instead, what takes courage is to respond to a threatening person not by pulling out a gun, but by showing him love, mercy, and peace (Matthew 5:9,7,5, James 3:18), in the name of Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:17).
~
(Re: But is not part of loving our families defending them from violent people?)
No, for love does not require physical defense. For Jesus Christ loved the first century AD church in Smyrna, but He did not physically defend it (Revelation 2:10).
(See also Luke 10:19 below)
~
(Re: Is not suffering from persecution different than suffering from criminal activity?)
No, for both require a pacifist response from Christians (Matthew 5:39).
Also, do you agree with pacifism in response to persecution?
If so, then why not agree with pacifism in response to other evil activity?
~
(Re: Do not pacifists allow evil to thrive?)
If "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12), is that God allowing evil to thrive?
If not, why not?
And if so, is God then a pacifist with regard to our suffering persecution?
~
(Re: Pacifists would sit by and allow thousands to be slaughtered)
Note that God will sit by and allow millions of Biblical Christians worldwide to be slaughtered (Matthew 24:9) by the future Antichrist (Revelation 13:7, Revelation 14:13).
For God knows that Christians are more than... (See "conquerors" under Luke 10:19 below)
~
(Re: If you saw a man trying to cause serious harm to a child who is a stranger to you, would not you attempt to stop this child abuse by means of violence? Also, do not try bringing up abortion here, for that is an entirely different matter, because abortion is legal)
How does abortion's (human) "legality" make any difference? If humans were to legalize the child abuse you mentioned, should we then just pass by child abuse as pacifists, in the same way that we pass by abortion clinics every day as pacifists, while innocent little ones are being torn to shreds inside the clinics?
~
(Re: So are you saying that I would be wrong to stop someone from harming my family, unless I somehow change abortion laws?)
Note that the reasons why it is wrong to employ violence were given in section 1 of Matthew 5:39 above, regardless of the human "legality" of abortion.
The point in the section just-above was that we should not try to employ the human "legality" of abortion as the reason for our pacifism toward the slaughter of innocents in abortion clinics. For if we believe that God expects us to employ violence to protect our innocent families, no matter what man-made law might someday forbid that, then how can we claim that God does not expect us to also employ violence to protect innocent babies in abortion clinics, no matter what man-made laws forbid that?
That is, imagine that San Francisco (an extremely liberal city) passes an ordinance which forbids the civilian firing of a gun, or the civilian employment of any other form of violence against anyone at anytime, even in self-defense. And imagine that you and your family are staying at a hotel there when an armed man breaks through your hotel-room door to attack your family. Are you going to say: "Oh, gee, I know that God expects me to defend my family with violence, but I have to be a pacifist now, so I that do not break the city law"? Or are you going to say: "I do not care what any stupid, man-made law says, I must obey God and protect my family with violence".
And if you would say the latter, then on what basis would you decline to say, regarding abortion: "I do not care what any stupid, man-made law says. I must obey God and defend these little babies with violence"?
And if you would reply with something like: "God only expects me to protect my family, not the babies of strangers", then imagine that you see the baby of a stranger in a stroller on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, about to be killed by a crazy homeless man with a knife. Are you going to pass by as a pacifist, because: "God only expects me to protect my own family, not the babies of strangers"? Or are you going to employ violence to save the baby? And if the latter, then what God-supported reason do you have not to rush in and also save the babies inside the clinic, who are about to be knifed by abortion doctors?
Or, imagine that your daughter gets pregnant by her boyfriend and lets the baby grow in her womb for about six months. You think that she is okay with becoming a mom, but then one day someone tips you off that she is down at the abortion clinic about to be operated on. Are you going to go down there and employ violence to save your own little grandson or granddaughter in her womb from being cut to shreds, to fulfill your God-mandated duty to protect your family with violence? Or are you going to say: "No, I have to let this family member be cut to shreds, no matter what God says, because of the man-made law allowing abortion"?
All of this is said not to in any way encourage violence against abortion clinics, but to show that pacifism is the only consistent, Biblical response to all of the awful evil in the world, just as Jesus Christ taught us:
Matthew 5:39 . . . I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
~
(Re: But was it not because of a pacifist eagerness to appease Hitler that the world suffered the loss of over forty million lives?)
No, pacifists have never killed anyone. It was only war-makers who killed the over forty million people who died in World War II.
~
(Re: But was it not *Chamberlain's bowing to a despot's demands which made the war inevitable?)
No, and it is curious that the war-makers would condemn Chamberlain for handing an ethnically-German part of Czechoslovakia over to Hitler, when the war-makers themselves would later turn around and hand over not only all of Czechoslovakia, but also all of the rest of eastern Europe, to Stalin. So who bowed to a despot more than the war-makers themselves, and even after they had caused the completely-unnecessary deaths of over forty million people in a war?
~
(Re: So we should have just let Hitler continue the slaughter of innocents in the Holocaust?)
No, and note that World War II was not actually fought over the Holocaust, but over the political control of countries. Also, even if it had been fought over the Holocaust, should over forty million people be killed in a war to try to save six million people alive? Instead, what could have saved them alive would have been a U.S. offer to receive, as immigrants, all of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people whom Hitler thought were weakening Germany. Hitler could have agreed to let them all go, for he would have seen it as a way for them to (in his mind) weaken his ultimate rival the U.S. instead. But Roosevelt did not want any Jewish immigrants coming to the United States. A boatload of them was even turned away.
Also, who supports the idea of a shooting war to stop the current Holocaust of millions of aborted babies who are being brutally murdered in abortion clinics around the world each year? Who are more innocent than these little babies? And yet where are the war-makers put who try to defend these innocents by killing anyone who would harm them? They are put into prison, as murderers; or they are put into insane asylums, as crazy people.
~
(Re: Your position would only allow dictators and tyrants to rule the world)
No, for pacifism as it spreads eventually undercuts tyrants. For it robs them of soldiers willing to fight their wars for them.
Why do you think that dictators today are outlawing pacifism as "extremism"?
~
(Re: Would not Hitler have conquered the world if everyone in America was pacifist?)
Hitler would have conquered nothing if the German people of his time had been pacifists.
~
(Re: Human beings are inherently evil)
And even Christians can be inherently susceptible to propaganda, so that they are lulled into thinking that a war is a "just war" when in fact it is not at all. Look at the American Civil War, for example. Both sides truly believed that God was on their side. Northern Christians slaughtered Southern Christians, and Southern Christians slaughtered Northern Christians, all in the name of God, when in fact it was just for political and economic power. It was the same during the wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation: Catholic Christians slaughtered Protestant Christians, and Protestant Christians slaughtered Catholic Christians, all in the name of Christ.
And it was the same during World War II: Both sides in Europe truly believed that God was on their side. British Christians slaughtered German Christians, and German Christians slaughtered British Christians, and both sides truly believed that their cause was just.
And even if Hitler had managed to defeat Britain and hold off Stalin, and to make it to American shores with an army, should American Christians have taken up arms against German Christians (and other European Christians who had joined the Nazi cause), most of whom were deceived by Hitler into thinking that what they were doing was a good thing, and who would have been instantly shot by the Gestapo if they had laid down their arms in the name of Christ and peace between Christians?
~
(Re: Was not World War II the very definition of a just war?)
Note that there are Christians (such as in the Christian Identity movement) who claim that it was Hitler who was waging a "just war" in World War II. Also, many non-German European Christians joined the Nazi cause because they were convinced by the Nazis that they were waging a "just war" against Communism. Similarly, the U.S. employed the idea of a "just war" against Communism to support, for example, the horrible and failed war in Vietnam. Also, the U.S. is employing the idea of a "just war" against terrorism to support the horrible and failed war in Afghanistan. This is the longest war in U.S. history, with no end in sight. How many more thousands of precious U.S. soldiers must die or be horribly maimed in Afghanistan, while accomplishing nothing lasting?
So it would be better for Christians to avoid the whole idea of a "just war", and instead embrace the pacifism which is taught by Jesus Christ:
[Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18]
By abandoning New Testament pacifism, Christians leave themselves open to being deceived into fighting a so-called "just war" which is in fact Satanic. For example, many Christians could be deceived into joining the future Antichrist's successful war against Biblical Christians (not in hiding) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10). For the Antichrist could convince many Christians that his is truly a "just war", one even waged in the name of Jesus.
(See Revelation 13:4 below)
~
(Re: Were not the early Christians persecuted until the Church was established by violence?)
Do you mean politically established under the Roman empire?
If so, note that before it came into power politically, Christianity survived its terrible persecution by the Roman empire not by fighting back physically, but by continuing to pray, preach, and peacefully convert the Roman empire.
Similarly, Christianity is surviving and even growing today in atheistic China precisely because the Christians there do not employ violence. If they did take up arms, the Communist state would only use that as an excuse to attempt to crush Christianity out of existence in China altogether.
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Nov 28, 2018
Matthew 5:18 did not mean that heaven and earth had to pass away before the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments could be abolished, but that Jesus Christ had to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming (Luke 24:44-46; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53) before He could abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (for both Jews and Gentiles, of all times) on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
(Re: *Full preterism? / If the old heaven and earth have not passed, would not we still be under the Old Covenant Mosaic law?)
No, for the "old" heaven and earth perished at the time of Noah's Flood (2 Peter 3:5-6), which was over 1,000 years before the Old Covenant Mosaic law was established in Exodus. The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments was abolished at the moment that Jesus Christ died on the Cross (Matthew 27:50-51a, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19), which was the same moment that He brought the New Covenant into effect (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 10:19-20, Matthew 27:51a). Matthew 5:18 refers to the literal heaven and earth "which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which will be literally burned up in our future (2 Peter 3:7-12).
(See the "Full preterism?" section of 2 Peter 3:10 below. Also, see the prior section here)
~
(Re: Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 changing the law)
Note that nothing requires that the principle of Matthew 5:18 was in effect at the time that the book of Ezekiel was written down in the sixth century BC.
(See Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 above)
~
(Re: Does Matthew 5:18's use of "or" require that Revelation 13:17's "or" means that the future Antichrist's number will be the same as his name?)
No, for just as the fact that a jot can take the place of a tittle does not mean that jots and tittles are the same thing (Matthew 5:18); and just as the fact that service to one master (mammon) can wrongly take the place of service to another master (God) does not that mean serving mammon is the same as serving God (Matthew 6:24); so the fact that non-Christians and apostates in our future will receive a mark on their body of either the Antichrist's name "or" a representation of the gematrial number of his name (666) (Revelation 13:17-18) does not mean that his name and the gematrial number of his name are the same thing.
(See Revelation 13:18 below)
--
*Matthew 5:19-20 / *Mt. 5:19 -
This refers to the New Covenant/New Testament commandments/sayings (Matthew 5:19, Matthew 7:24-29) which Jesus, as the Christ (Matthew 5:17b, Luke 24:44-46), was just about to give in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29), and which New Covenant commandments "exceed in righteousness" (Matthew 5:20 to 7:29) the (now) abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19), which was kept by the Pharisees. Compare what the apostle Paul says about himself in Philippians 3:5-14.
~
(Re: So are we now under a *stricter law?)
Yes, for Jesus Christ shows in the Sermon on the Mount how His New Covenant, Christian commandments are stricter than the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade murder (Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:13), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even calling people names (Matthew 5:22). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade adultery (Matthew 5:27, Exodus 20:14), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even looking at another woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1-2), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids it (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), except for a single exemption granted only to husbands who discover that their newlywed wife is not a virgin, but had committed fornication (Matthew 19:9).
Jesus Christ also shows in the Sermon on the Mount that while His New Covenant, Christian law is stricter than the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, at the same time it is also more merciful. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required taking an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38, Deuteronomy 19:21), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required hatred for one's enemies (Matthew 5:43, Deuteronomy 23:6), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), required, for example, that adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10), while Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:4-11). And, for another example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required that anyone who does any work on the sabbath is to be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), while Jesus allowed His disciples to work on the sabbath, and said that they were guiltless (Matthew 12:1-8), just as Jesus Himself worked on the sabbath (John 5:17-18).
So in obeying Jesus Christ's New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29, John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:37), Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are both more merciful and loving, and also exceed in righteousness, those who mistakenly try to keep the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
(Re: Was not the Sermon on the Mount from the Jewish *oral law?)
Today, the Jewish oral law is a written law, codified in the Mishna and Talmud. So can you quote from where you feel that the Mishna and Talmud teach what Jesus Christ teaches in the Sermon on the Mount? Also, the Mishna and Talmud were written down after the Sermon on the Mount was written down in Matthew chapters 5 to 7. For the book of Matthew was written down in the first century AD, whereas the Mishna was not written down until about 200 AD, and the Talmud was not written down until about 500 AD. So even if any quotations can be found in the Mishna or Talmud which are similar to ideas in the Sermon on the Mount, the ideas in the quotations could have been derived from the Sermon on the Mount.
Also, if the Jewish oral law taught what Jesus Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount, then the Jewish oral law contradicted the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, as written down in the Old Testament. For what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount contradicted the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law...
(See the "stricter" section above, from the last sentence of paragraph 1 to the end of paragraph 2)
Also, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews have different views on the age and binding nature of the Jewish oral law. So even religious Jews are not in agreement with regard to the oral law.
~
(Re: As a *rabbi, would not Jesus have known the oral law, which was passed down orally from master to disciple?)
Note that Jesus Christ got His teachings not by being the disciple of a Jewish rabbi, or by hearing any man-made oral law, but by hearing directly from God the Father (John 12:49-50). Also, Christians must be careful not to be deceived into giving heed to Jewish rabbis who contradict what the Bible teaches (Titus 1:14; 2 Timothy 4:2-4). Also, no Christian should ever let anyone call him "Rabbi" or "Master" (Teacher). For Jesus Christ Himself is the only Rabbi and Master (Teacher) of all Christians (whether Jews or Gentiles), who are all brothers and sisters in Christ (Matthew 23:8,10).
--
*Matthew 5:32 / *Mt. 5:32 -
See Mark 10:11 below.
--
*Matthew 5:39 / *Mt. 5:39 -
(Re: *Violence)
Under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), whereas killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3).
But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They are to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44). And this means that they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).
It is the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).
(See paragraphs 2-3 of Luke 22:36b below)
~
(Re: But are not pacifists cowards?)
No, for it does not take much courage to pull out a gun and shoot someone dead with no harm to yourself. Instead, what takes courage is to respond to a threatening person not by pulling out a gun, but by showing him love, mercy, and peace (Matthew 5:9,7,5, James 3:18), in the name of Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:17).
~
(Re: But is not part of loving our families defending them from violent people?)
No, for love does not require physical defense. For Jesus Christ loved the first century AD church in Smyrna, but He did not physically defend it (Revelation 2:10).
(See also Luke 10:19 below)
~
(Re: Is not suffering from persecution different than suffering from criminal activity?)
No, for both require a pacifist response from Christians (Matthew 5:39).
Also, do you agree with pacifism in response to persecution?
If so, then why not agree with pacifism in response to other evil activity?
~
(Re: Do not pacifists allow evil to thrive?)
If "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12), is that God allowing evil to thrive?
If not, why not?
And if so, is God then a pacifist with regard to our suffering persecution?
~
(Re: Pacifists would sit by and allow thousands to be slaughtered)
Note that God will sit by and allow millions of Biblical Christians worldwide to be slaughtered (Matthew 24:9) by the future Antichrist (Revelation 13:7, Revelation 14:13).
For God knows that Christians are more than... (See "conquerors" under Luke 10:19 below)
~
(Re: If you saw a man trying to cause serious harm to a child who is a stranger to you, would not you attempt to stop this child abuse by means of violence? Also, do not try bringing up abortion here, for that is an entirely different matter, because abortion is legal)
How does abortion's (human) "legality" make any difference? If humans were to legalize the child abuse you mentioned, should we then just pass by child abuse as pacifists, in the same way that we pass by abortion clinics every day as pacifists, while innocent little ones are being torn to shreds inside the clinics?
~
(Re: So are you saying that I would be wrong to stop someone from harming my family, unless I somehow change abortion laws?)
Note that the reasons why it is wrong to employ violence were given in section 1 of Matthew 5:39 above, regardless of the human "legality" of abortion.
The point in the section just-above was that we should not try to employ the human "legality" of abortion as the reason for our pacifism toward the slaughter of innocents in abortion clinics. For if we believe that God expects us to employ violence to protect our innocent families, no matter what man-made law might someday forbid that, then how can we claim that God does not expect us to also employ violence to protect innocent babies in abortion clinics, no matter what man-made laws forbid that?
That is, imagine that San Francisco (an extremely liberal city) passes an ordinance which forbids the civilian firing of a gun, or the civilian employment of any other form of violence against anyone at anytime, even in self-defense. And imagine that you and your family are staying at a hotel there when an armed man breaks through your hotel-room door to attack your family. Are you going to say: "Oh, gee, I know that God expects me to defend my family with violence, but I have to be a pacifist now, so I that do not break the city law"? Or are you going to say: "I do not care what any stupid, man-made law says, I must obey God and protect my family with violence".
And if you would say the latter, then on what basis would you decline to say, regarding abortion: "I do not care what any stupid, man-made law says. I must obey God and defend these little babies with violence"?
And if you would reply with something like: "God only expects me to protect my family, not the babies of strangers", then imagine that you see the baby of a stranger in a stroller on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, about to be killed by a crazy homeless man with a knife. Are you going to pass by as a pacifist, because: "God only expects me to protect my own family, not the babies of strangers"? Or are you going to employ violence to save the baby? And if the latter, then what God-supported reason do you have not to rush in and also save the babies inside the clinic, who are about to be knifed by abortion doctors?
Or, imagine that your daughter gets pregnant by her boyfriend and lets the baby grow in her womb for about six months. You think that she is okay with becoming a mom, but then one day someone tips you off that she is down at the abortion clinic about to be operated on. Are you going to go down there and employ violence to save your own little grandson or granddaughter in her womb from being cut to shreds, to fulfill your God-mandated duty to protect your family with violence? Or are you going to say: "No, I have to let this family member be cut to shreds, no matter what God says, because of the man-made law allowing abortion"?
All of this is said not to in any way encourage violence against abortion clinics, but to show that pacifism is the only consistent, Biblical response to all of the awful evil in the world, just as Jesus Christ taught us:
Matthew 5:39 . . . I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
~
(Re: But was it not because of a pacifist eagerness to appease Hitler that the world suffered the loss of over forty million lives?)
No, pacifists have never killed anyone. It was only war-makers who killed the over forty million people who died in World War II.
~
(Re: But was it not *Chamberlain's bowing to a despot's demands which made the war inevitable?)
No, and it is curious that the war-makers would condemn Chamberlain for handing an ethnically-German part of Czechoslovakia over to Hitler, when the war-makers themselves would later turn around and hand over not only all of Czechoslovakia, but also all of the rest of eastern Europe, to Stalin. So who bowed to a despot more than the war-makers themselves, and even after they had caused the completely-unnecessary deaths of over forty million people in a war?
~
(Re: So we should have just let Hitler continue the slaughter of innocents in the Holocaust?)
No, and note that World War II was not actually fought over the Holocaust, but over the political control of countries. Also, even if it had been fought over the Holocaust, should over forty million people be killed in a war to try to save six million people alive? Instead, what could have saved them alive would have been a U.S. offer to receive, as immigrants, all of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people whom Hitler thought were weakening Germany. Hitler could have agreed to let them all go, for he would have seen it as a way for them to (in his mind) weaken his ultimate rival the U.S. instead. But Roosevelt did not want any Jewish immigrants coming to the United States. A boatload of them was even turned away.
Also, who supports the idea of a shooting war to stop the current Holocaust of millions of aborted babies who are being brutally murdered in abortion clinics around the world each year? Who are more innocent than these little babies? And yet where are the war-makers put who try to defend these innocents by killing anyone who would harm them? They are put into prison, as murderers; or they are put into insane asylums, as crazy people.
~
(Re: Your position would only allow dictators and tyrants to rule the world)
No, for pacifism as it spreads eventually undercuts tyrants. For it robs them of soldiers willing to fight their wars for them.
Why do you think that dictators today are outlawing pacifism as "extremism"?
~
(Re: Would not Hitler have conquered the world if everyone in America was pacifist?)
Hitler would have conquered nothing if the German people of his time had been pacifists.
~
(Re: Human beings are inherently evil)
And even Christians can be inherently susceptible to propaganda, so that they are lulled into thinking that a war is a "just war" when in fact it is not at all. Look at the American Civil War, for example. Both sides truly believed that God was on their side. Northern Christians slaughtered Southern Christians, and Southern Christians slaughtered Northern Christians, all in the name of God, when in fact it was just for political and economic power. It was the same during the wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation: Catholic Christians slaughtered Protestant Christians, and Protestant Christians slaughtered Catholic Christians, all in the name of Christ.
And it was the same during World War II: Both sides in Europe truly believed that God was on their side. British Christians slaughtered German Christians, and German Christians slaughtered British Christians, and both sides truly believed that their cause was just.
And even if Hitler had managed to defeat Britain and hold off Stalin, and to make it to American shores with an army, should American Christians have taken up arms against German Christians (and other European Christians who had joined the Nazi cause), most of whom were deceived by Hitler into thinking that what they were doing was a good thing, and who would have been instantly shot by the Gestapo if they had laid down their arms in the name of Christ and peace between Christians?
~
(Re: Was not World War II the very definition of a just war?)
Note that there are Christians (such as in the Christian Identity movement) who claim that it was Hitler who was waging a "just war" in World War II. Also, many non-German European Christians joined the Nazi cause because they were convinced by the Nazis that they were waging a "just war" against Communism. Similarly, the U.S. employed the idea of a "just war" against Communism to support, for example, the horrible and failed war in Vietnam. Also, the U.S. is employing the idea of a "just war" against terrorism to support the horrible and failed war in Afghanistan. This is the longest war in U.S. history, with no end in sight. How many more thousands of precious U.S. soldiers must die or be horribly maimed in Afghanistan, while accomplishing nothing lasting?
So it would be better for Christians to avoid the whole idea of a "just war", and instead embrace the pacifism which is taught by Jesus Christ:
[Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18]
By abandoning New Testament pacifism, Christians leave themselves open to being deceived into fighting a so-called "just war" which is in fact Satanic. For example, many Christians could be deceived into joining the future Antichrist's successful war against Biblical Christians (not in hiding) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10). For the Antichrist could convince many Christians that his is truly a "just war", one even waged in the name of Jesus.
(See Revelation 13:4 below)
~
(Re: Were not the early Christians persecuted until the Church was established by violence?)
Do you mean politically established under the Roman empire?
If so, note that before it came into power politically, Christianity survived its terrible persecution by the Roman empire not by fighting back physically, but by continuing to pray, preach, and peacefully convert the Roman empire.
Similarly, Christianity is surviving and even growing today in atheistic China precisely because the Christians there do not employ violence. If they did take up arms, the Communist state would only use that as an excuse to attempt to crush Christianity out of existence in China altogether.
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Nov 28, 2018
