Whose Vengeance is it Anyway?

[SteveIndy]

“Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay.” Yet, very many Christians across this land disagree with God and buy up guns and ammunition, enlist in the military, and belong to police forces. This response to God is rebellion and unbelief. They rip the reins of power and authority from the hands of the Almighty taking vengeance and justice into their own hands relegating God to nonexistence or unimportance and preach that this is serving God. They say they believe God but in their actions they deny Him. “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to both save and destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?…” James 4:12

Is it any mystery why Christ would say, “Will I even find faith on the earth when I return”? Is not this the epitome of good becoming evil and evil becoming good? Christians have no business in law enforcement, of any kind, when they have been freed from all law and are judged by no man. Uniforms and badges are symbols of worldly power of which the true Christian has no use or desire. Those who belong to the world gravitate toward the world and its symbols and those who belong to Christ gravitate away from the world and toward His likeness, displaying His symbol of love toward all men equally even toward those the world condemns, the enemies of society.

Christ died for all men. Who are we to decide that a man is unworthy of life? Is it our job to decide who is worthy or unworthy of life, the Gospel, or eternity with the Father? My advice to these confused Christians is no different than the advice given to the primitive Christians. Tertullian, for instance, wrote an entire treatise forbidding military service among Christians (The Crown) and such sentiment is found throughout his other writings (On Idolatry). Origen too condemned military service whenever he addressed the subject. And Lactantius agreed: “A just man may not be a soldier” (Divine Institutes, 6.20). The general attitude of the Primitive Church (from Christ to Constantine) was that Christians do not serve in any capacity of government or where harming another person is a requirement of that position.

It is only from the time of Augustine and Constantine (a time when the Church gained great power) that the institutionalized “Church” promoted killing by believers alongside unbelievers in worldly campaigns to secure the state and to enforce the peace. We should not be surprised that corruption slowly crept into the Church since it was prophesied by Christ Himself and by His Apostles. But, today it is accepted without a word of disagreement or wonder that it is the duty of all Christians to take up arms against the enemies of society. Most Christians not taking the time to investigate the history of the Church, that Christ and the Apostles founded, accept the false teaching of the corrupted aberration. It is only in spotty cells of believers that the truth is still preached without reservation against popular doctrines that have been politicized for the sake of patriotism and feel-good religion. Augustine, on several fronts, has cost the Church dearly, but none so much as his “Just War” theory. This man did Christ no favor by releasing the restraints that help keep the flesh in check. And Constantine, being a political genius (much like Trump) used religion to his own, and the state’s, benefit. Of course, the flesh, having an affinity for evil, adapted easily to this new freedom to express the very things that Christ through the Spirit came to mortify.

So, here we are at the end of the age and barely one in five hundred are aware that Christ will soon return and separate the sheep from the goats and that their lives are in peril of hearing those awful words, “Depart from Me I never knew you.”

At that time we will discover, without question, whose vengeance it really is.

 

[mathinspiration]

Revenge really does only hurt the individual who desires it and serves no purpose. It is hard to do sometimes to forgive and forget.

 

[Oldmantook]

So you find yourself at your child's school one day - at the same time that another person has planned to carry out a mass killing of the students there. You may have in your possession a pocket knife you always carry, or maybe even a gun as you have a license to carry. You may even have a bat in your hand as you were on your way to the baseball field. Or you my have nothing in your possession but you see a fire extinguisher on the wall. You see the person begin shooting. What do you do? If you had something in your possession that you could use to stop the attacker wouldn't you use it? Or would you just say to yourself it's up to God to avenge?

 

[Hank77]

Christ died for all men. Who are we to decide that a man is unworthy of life? Is it our job to decide who is worthy or unworthy of life, the Gospel, or eternity with the Father? My advice to these confused Christians is no different than the advice given to the primitive Christians. Tertullian, for instance, wrote an entire treatise forbidding military service among Christians (The Crown) and such sentiment is found throughout his other writings (On Idolatry). Origen too condemned military service whenever he addressed the subject. And Lactantius agreed: “A just man may not be a soldier” (Divine Institutes, 6.20). The general attitude of the Primitive Church (from Christ to Constantine) was that Christians do not serve in any capacity of government or where harming another person is a requirement of that position.

Did you forget this Roman soldier?

Act 10:21 and Peter having come down unto the men who have been sent from Cornelius unto him, said, `Lo, I am he whom ye seek, what is the cause for which ye are present?'
Act 10:22 And they said, `Cornelius, a centurion, a man righteous and fearing God, well testified to, also, by all the nation of the Jews, was divinely warned by a holy messenger to send for thee, to his house, and to hear sayings from thee.'
....
Act 10:30 And Cornelius said, `Four days ago till this hour, I was fasting, and at the ninth hour praying in my house, and, lo, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Act 10:31 and he said, Cornelius, thy prayer was heard, and thy kind acts were remembered before God;
....
Act 10:34 And Peter having opened his mouth, said, `Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons,
Act 10:35 but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him;

Your argument doesn't even stand up from a place of silence in the scriptures. Read what God thought about this soldier Cornelius. Peter had the perfect opportunity to instruct him that he couldn't be a soldier and a Christ follower, but he didn't and there isn't anywhere in the Bible that makes that claim.
There isn't anywhere in the Bible that says we cannot defend ourselves and others.

 

[SteveIndy]

So you find yourself at your child's school one day - at the same time that another person has planned to carry out a mass killing of the students there. You may have in your possession a pocket knife you always carry, or maybe even a gun as you have a license to carry. You may even have a bat in your hand as you were on your way to the baseball field. Or you my have nothing in your possession but you see a fire extinguisher on the wall. You see the person begin shooting. What do you do? If you had something in your possession that you could use to stop the attacker wouldn't you use it? Or would you just say to yourself it's up to God to avenge?

When we ask such a question we must not assume an answer on the level of the flesh, or we will surely go astray. We must ask this question, and expect an answer from the New Testament.

In the New Testament light of Jesus’ own words, to love Him above all other things, including your family, suppose for a moment that the government demanded that you deny Him, and that you should offer up the obligatory sacrifice to their god, “The Grand Architect of the Universe,” or the Statue of Liberty, or to the American Flag, or else they would kill your wife and children. What would you do? Or, say a terrorist held your family hostage, threating to kill them unless you detonate a dirty bomb in a highly populated area. Would you save your family at the cost of say 1,000,000 people? For the true Christian, the answer is clear; he could not do it; he could not kill others or deny Jesus to save his family. Jesus has given us the answer. If we love our own life, or the lives of our family more than we love Him, we are not worthy of Him, or to wear the name of “Christian” (Matthew 10:33). Or, what if Jesus Himself instructs you, as a loyal servant to not “return evil for evil” (1 Peter 3:9), but to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21), “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43, 44), or to “turn the other cheek” and “resist not evil” would you do it? (Matthew 5:39). All of the “What if . . . ?” questions are answered the same way, obey the Lord. You say we should resort to the sword, but Jesus says we should resort to obedience.

Nevertheless, as a Christian, we should intervene and try to stop the man. If an older sibling is pulling out the hair of a younger sibling we should likewise intervene. But, our first allegiance is to Christ and obedience. Or, if we have to do harm to save a person's life, for example, amputate an arm then the harm done is to save life. Your charitable expression may cost you your life but that is your duty, you must try and stop the man without killing him.

 

[SteveIndy]

Did you forget this Roman soldier?

Act 10:21 and Peter having come down unto the men who have been sent from Cornelius unto him, said, `Lo, I am he whom ye seek, what is the cause for which ye are present?'
Act 10:22 And they said, `Cornelius, a centurion, a man righteous and fearing God, well testified to, also, by all the nation of the Jews, was divinely warned by a holy messenger to send for thee, to his house, and to hear sayings from thee.'
....
Act 10:30 And Cornelius said, `Four days ago till this hour, I was fasting, and at the ninth hour praying in my house, and, lo, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Act 10:31 and he said, Cornelius, thy prayer was heard, and thy kind acts were remembered before God;
....
Act 10:34 And Peter having opened his mouth, said, `Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons,
Act 10:35 but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him;

Your argument doesn't even stand up from a place of silence in the scriptures. Read what God thought about this soldier Cornelius. Peter had the perfect opportunity to instruct him that he couldn't be a soldier and a Christ follower, but he didn't and there isn't anywhere in the Bible that makes that claim.
There isn't anywhere in the Bible that says we cannot defend ourselves and others.

Did you forget, "Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord." Is the Prince of Peace now giving permission to undo peace. You cannot cancel out the clear teaching of Christ and His Apostles by inserting an ambiguous question about whether or not Cornelius remained in the military, the truth is, we don't know. What we do know is that the primitive Church disallowed membership or baptism if a person remained in the military. I think that we can correctly assume that those who were closest to the Apostles and learned from them the correct Church protocol have built on a solid foundation of understanding. So, who should we go to for truth? Should we read the latest book releases which do not coincide with the original documents or go to those who knew the original authors?

 

[Oldmantook]

When we ask such a question we must not assume an answer on the level of the flesh, or we will surely go astray. We must ask this question, and expect an answer from the New Testament.

In the New Testament light of Jesus’ own words, to love Him above all other things, including your family, suppose for a moment that the government demanded that you deny Him, and that you should offer up the obligatory sacrifice to their god, “The Grand Architect of the Universe,” or the Statue of Liberty, or to the American Flag, or else they would kill your wife and children. What would you do? Or, say a terrorist held your family hostage, threating to kill them unless you detonate a dirty bomb in a highly populated area. Would you save your family at the cost of say 1,000,000 people? For the true Christian, the answer is clear; he could not do it; he could not kill others or deny Jesus to save his family. Jesus has given us the answer. If we love our own life, or the lives of our family more than we love Him, we are not worthy of Him, or to wear the name of “Christian” (Matthew 10:33). Or, what if Jesus Himself instructs you, as a loyal servant to not “return evil for evil” (1 Peter 3:9), but to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21), “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43, 44), or to “turn the other cheek” and “resist not evil” would you do it? (Matthew 5:39). All of the “What if . . . ?” questions are answered the same way, obey the Lord. You say we should resort to the sword, but Jesus says we should resort to obedience.

Nevertheless, as a Christian, we should intervene and try to stop the man. If an older sibling is pulling out the hair of a younger sibling we should likewise intervene. But, our first allegiance is to Christ and obedience. Or, if we have to do harm to save a person's life, for example, amputate an arm then the harm done is to save life. Your charitable expression may cost you your life but that is your duty, you must try and stop the man without killing him.

I find your examples to be rather arbitrary. Sometimes self sacrifice and sacrificing one's own family for the sake of others is indeed necessary but that is not really germane to the discussion. Loving him is defined as obedience to Him. No where in the OT or NT are believers prevented from acting in self defense in order to protect themselves or the lives of others from harm. You err in comparing obeying the Lord and resorting to the sword as mutually exclusive. If I resort to the sword in order to save an innocent life am I then disobedient? I don't find your caveat stop the man without killing him to have scriptural warrant. If I seek to stop a murderer, I stop him/her by all means necessary - don't want to kill him and use less lethal means if possible but if it happens in order to save an innocent life than at least an innocent life was saved.

 

[SteveIndy]

I find your examples to be rather arbitrary. Sometimes self sacrifice and sacrificing one's own family for the sake of others is indeed necessary but that is not really germane to the discussion. Loving him is defined as obedience to Him. No where in the OT or NT are believers prevented from acting in self defense in order to protect themselves or the lives of others from harm. You err in comparing obeying the Lord and resorting to the sword as mutually exclusive. If I resort to the sword in order to save an innocent life am I then disobedient? I don't find your caveat stop the man without killing him to have scriptural warrant. If I seek to stop a murderer, I stop him/her by all means necessary - don't want to kill him and use less lethal means if possible but if it happens in order to save an innocent life than at least an innocent life was saved.

Aren’t all examples “rather arbitrary”? After all, they are only suppositions, and in that respect, your example is likewise arbitrary. And, as far as “germane” what is more to the question than obedience to our Master? Because Jesus did not specifically say “Do not protect yourself if you are assaulted” you invalidate the example of His life, the lives of the Apostles, and of most saints of the first 300 years. As far as the O.T. goes it is no longer valid. In Matthew 5 Jesus 5 or 6 times said, “You have heard it said” then overrides Moses and institutes His own way with the words, “But I say.” In that new declaration, He states 5:39 “Do not resist an evil person.” Again, when Jesus stood before Pilate and was asked if He was a king He responded, “Yes, but My kingdom is not of this world if it was of this word then would My disciples fight.” Paul later said that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual.” And, there are other places, but because Jesus did not speak the words you require you throw out everything else. Yes, protect others from harm but do it the way Christ did it, “overcome evil with good” and don’t do it the way the world does it. You ask, “If I resort to the sword in order to save an innocent life am I then disobedient?” According to Scripture you are disobedient and need to repent, you have “arbitrarily” decided that Christ’s way is insufficient. You say, “I don't find your caveat stop the man without killing him to have scriptural warrant.” Does the Cross mean anything to you? Is the innocent lamb like death of Jesus not “warrant” enough, if not then look at His Apostles who followed His example? Did Jesus not say, “pick up your cross and follow Me”? What does that mean? Are we to return to the first century Roman nation and make our self a sacrifice, or is there a more “germane” message here that is vastly more relevant than the Church is recognizing? You have your “warrant”, the question is, will you obey? Oh, and I might add, there is no such thing as an innocent life outside of Christ.

 

[Oldmantook]

Aren’t all examples “rather arbitrary”? After all, they are only suppositions, and in that respect, your example is likewise arbitrary. And, as far as “germane” what is more to the question than obedience to our Master? Because Jesus did not specifically say “Do not protect yourself if you are assaulted” you invalidate the example of His life, the lives of the Apostles, and of most saints of the first 300 years. As far as the O.T. goes it is no longer valid. In Matthew 5 Jesus 5 or 6 times said, “You have heard it said” then overrides Moses and institutes His own way with the words, “But I say.” In that new declaration, He states 5:39 “Do not resist an evil person.” Again, when Jesus stood before Pilate and was asked if He was a king He responded, “Yes, but My kingdom is not of this world if it was of this word then would My disciples fight.” Paul later said that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual.” And, there are other places, but because Jesus did not speak the words you require you throw out everything else. Yes, protect others from harm but do it the way Christ did it, “overcome evil with good” and don’t do it the way the world does it. You ask, “If I resort to the sword in order to save an innocent life am I then disobedient?” According to Scripture you are disobedient and need to repent, you have “arbitrarily” decided that Christ’s way is insufficient. You say, “I don't find your caveat stop the man without killing him to have scriptural warrant.” Does the Cross mean anything to you? Is the innocent lamb like death of Jesus not “warrant” enough, if not then look at His Apostles who followed His example? Did Jesus not say, “pick up your cross and follow Me”? What does that mean? Are we to return to the first century Roman nation and make our self a sacrifice, or is there a more “germane” message here that is vastly more relevant than the Church is recognizing? You have your “warrant”, the question is, will you obey? Oh, and I might add, there is no such thing as an innocent life outside of Christ.

The OT is valid but that is another subject in itself. I do agree obedience is of utmost importance but to compare our lives with the life of Jesus is not valid in your example. Jesus could have easily protected himself at any time and could have wrought harm or even death upon those who sought to kill him but you and I know that if he chose to do so, his whole purpose for coming to earth as a sacrifice and atonement for our sins would have been nullified. Thus to compare Jesus' actions with ours is like comparing apples to oranges.
Your belief is unwarranted as Peter himself carried a sword. What do you suppose a disciple needs to carry a sword for? Jesus knew he was carrying a sword and did not tell him to put it away until he cut off someone's ear.
Picking up one's cross and following Him does not include watching and standing by idly as a child is molested, harmed or in danger of being killed. Failure to do anything is sin by omission, plain and simple.

 

[SteveIndy]

The OT is valid but that is another subject in itself. I do agree obedience is of utmost importance but to compare our lives with the life of Jesus is not valid in your example. Jesus could have easily protected himself at any time and could have wrought harm or even death upon those who sought to kill him but you and I know that if he chose to do so, his whole purpose for coming to earth as a sacrifice and atonement for our sins would have been nullified. Thus to compare Jesus' actions with ours is like comparing apples to oranges.
Your belief is unwarranted as Peter himself carried a sword. What do you suppose a disciple needs to carry a sword for? Jesus knew he was carrying a sword and did not tell him to put it away until he cut off someone's ear.
Picking up one's cross and following Him does not include watching and standing by idly as a child is molested, harmed or in danger of being killed. Failure to do anything is sin by omission, plain and simple.

You brought up the O.T. now you want to cast it aside? So, when Christ told us to pick up our own cross He didn't really mean it? How do you explain the obedience of the Apostles who obviously understood Jesus to mean exactly what He said? And, we can even count the vast number of past believers who believed Jesus' words as I believe them. And, Peter, where do you see Peter or any of the others carrying a sword. Jesus' words to Peter that those who live by the sword will die by the sword registered perfectly with Peter's understanding and all the others. You obviously did not read my other response or you would not have written that I said we should do nothing. By all means, protect the helpless and if necessary die for them, even if it is your enemy. This is not rocket science. You do not want to accept the words of the savior so you twist to breaking the commands of our Lord, these people are called "unbelievers."

 

[Oldmantook]

You brought up the O.T. now you want to cast it aside? So, when Christ told us to pick up our own cross He didn't really mean it? How do you explain the obedience of the Apostles who obviously understood Jesus to mean exactly what He said? And, we can even count the vast number of past believers who believed Jesus' words as I believe them. And, Peter, where do you see Peter or any of the others carrying a sword. Jesus' words to Peter that those who live by the sword will die by the sword registered perfectly with Peter's understanding and all the others. You obviously did not read my other response or you would not have written that I said we should do nothing. By all means, protect the helpless and if necessary die for them, even if it is your enemy. This is not rocket science. You do not want to accept the words of the savior so you twist to breaking the commands of our Lord, these people are called "unbelievers."

We can certainly discuss the OT as God often commanded his people Israel not only to defend themselves but drive out by violent means other nations occupying the land. How's about that for pacifism? I can also guess that according to your paradigm when David killed Goliath, his aim was off so he only intended to maim him but instead, he unintentionally killed Goliath. Poor disobedient David. You clearly stated that we should not try to kill people if possible which I agree with, but in battle one often has no choice so your advice is basically senseless.

Was not Peter carrying a sword when he cut off the man's ear? Perhaps you aren't even aware of Jesus' own instructions to his disciples?
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" Lk 22:36
I guess Jesus commanded his disciples to buy a sword but to never use it according to your interpretation.

 

[DavidFirth]

I didn't serve in the US Army out of vengeance. I did it to help protect our country from its enemies. I don't think there is anything sinful in that.

Luke 3
14Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”


Christ did not tell them not to be soldiers but rather to do their job rightly and be happy with their wages.

 

[SteveIndy]

We can certainly discuss the OT as God often commanded his people Israel not only to defend themselves but drive out by violent means other nations occupying the land. How's about that for pacifism? I can also guess that according to your paradigm when David killed Goliath, his aim was off so he only intended to maim him but instead, he unintentionally killed Goliath. Poor disobedient David. You clearly stated that we should not try to kill people if possible which I agree with, but in battle one often has no choice so your advice is basically senseless.

Was not Peter carrying a sword when he cut off the man's ear? Perhaps you aren't even aware of Jesus' own instructions to his disciples?
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" Lk 22:36
I guess Jesus commanded his disciples to buy a sword but to never use it according to your interpretation.

Why do you insist on the O.T. authority when it has been abolished. The N.T. makes perfectly clear that Christ was the fulfillment of the O.T. and that He elected to change it. Matthew 5, as I pointed out, has Jesus saying six times, “you have it heard it said.” Where did they hear it said, in Moses of course? Jesus then overrides the O.T. saying of Moses with His own words, “But I say.” If this has not convinced you there are other places. Jesus also said about John the Baptist that, “The law and the prophets were until John but now everyone must press earnestly into the kingdom.” The book of Hebrews was written to show the superiority of Christ over the Law, e.g. 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the correct representation of His being.” Also, 1:1,2 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers at many times and in many way, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son.” Also, 8:7,8 “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.” Also, 9:15-17 “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.” As long as the testator is alive he can change his will to say what ever he pleases, and Jesus did exactly that, He created a NEW last will and Testament, then He died sealing forever His desire and commands.

The whole N.T. is filled with this idea abrogation of the old covenant, yet Christians everywhere keep returning to the O.T. to justify their need to avenge a wrong done to them or others and justify murder as long as they can call it “the right thing to do.” They refuse to obey Jesus and continually bow to the flesh and its need to “feel” justified. How’s about that for peace, nonresistance, and obeying Christ? All of the O.T. is representative of the spiritual warfare we must fight as Paul tried to explain, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual.” We have no mandate to kill another human being for Christ, for any reason.

As far as your using Peter for justification I think you should read the whole context where it is plain that Jesus had a specific purpose for arming His disciples. Luke 22:36,37 “He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” I am not surprised that you left out verse 37 which explains why Jesus asked them to get swords. “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” You see, this is not rocket science, we must just be willing to accept what Jesus says. Jesus was a stickler for fulfilling prophecy. With that little act of Peter, that prophecy was fulfilled and Jesus then instructs Peter to put away the sword forever lest he, i.e. Peter, fulfill another prophecy of death to those who subscribe to self-defense and murder. And, if you remember there were only two swords and Jesus said that that was enough, enough for what, enough to fulfill prophecy.

The Church has been blinded to this simple fact that is plain, yet modern Christians are adamant to disallow God’s word to speak into their lives and are content to follow the crowd where they think there is safety in numbers. It is not true. The Bible tells us that being a Christ follower will mean suffering and rejection and that the flock of Christ is small and that very few will be able to enter through the strait gate. All that modern Christianity has to do today is to appeal to the flesh and everything is good. The Church is in pathetic condition and if you follow the crowd you will not end up where you were hoping.

 

[SteveIndy]

I didn't serve in the US Army out of vengeance. I did it to help protect our country from its enemies. I don't think there is anything sinful in that.

Luke 3
14Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”


Christ did not tell them not to be soldiers but rather to do their job rightly and be happy with their wages.

Serving in the military is wrong. Doesn't Christ command us "not to swear at all"? When you entered military service you had to take an oath to obey your commanding officer and uphold the constitution of the U.S., didn't you? When you took that oath you separated yourself from Christ and bound yourself to those who require you to do things that Christ rejects. You cannot serve two masters, you must choose who you will serve and with that oath you made your choice.

Your quote is incorrect. It was John the Baptist who said these words. Keep in mind that John was still under the O.T. law, e.g. "The Law and the prophets were until John." So, John understood life from an O.T. vantage point; Jesus had not yet completed the New Covenant.

 

[Oldmantook]

Why do you insist on the O.T. authority when it has been abolished. The N.T. makes perfectly clear that Christ was the fulfillment of the O.T. and that He elected to change it. Matthew 5, as I pointed out, has Jesus saying six times, “you have it heard it said.” Where did they hear it said, in Moses of course? Jesus then overrides the O.T. saying of Moses with His own words, “But I say.” If this has not convinced you there are other places. Jesus also said about John the Baptist that, “The law and the prophets were until John but now everyone must press earnestly into the kingdom.” The book of Hebrews was written to show the superiority of Christ over the Law, e.g. 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the correct representation of His being.” Also, 1:1,2 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers at many times and in many way, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son.” Also, 8:7,8 “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.” Also, 9:15-17 “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.” As long as the testator is alive he can change his will to say what ever he pleases, and Jesus did exactly that, He created a NEW last will and Testament, then He died sealing forever His desire and commands.

The whole N.T. is filled with this idea abrogation of the old covenant, yet Christians everywhere keep returning to the O.T. to justify their need to avenge a wrong done to them or others and justify murder as long as they can call it “the right thing to do.” They refuse to obey Jesus and continually bow to the flesh and its need to “feel” justified. How’s about that for peace, nonresistance, and obeying Christ? All of the O.T. is representative of the spiritual warfare we must fight as Paul tried to explain, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual.” We have no mandate to kill another human being for Christ, for any reason.

As far as your using Peter for justification I think you should read the whole context where it is plain that Jesus had a specific purpose for arming His disciples. Luke 22:36,37 “He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” I am not surprised that you left out verse 37 which explains why Jesus asked them to get swords. “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” You see, this is not rocket science, we must just be willing to accept what Jesus says. Jesus was a stickler for fulfilling prophecy. With that little act of Peter, that prophecy was fulfilled and Jesus then instructs Peter to put away the sword forever lest he, i.e. Peter, fulfill another prophecy of death to those who subscribe to self-defense and murder. And, if you remember there were only two swords and Jesus said that that was enough, enough for what, enough to fulfill prophecy.

The Church has been blinded to this simple fact that is plain, yet modern Christians are adamant to disallow God’s word to speak into their lives and are content to follow the crowd where they think there is safety in numbers. It is not true. The Bible tells us that being a Christ follower will mean suffering and rejection and that the flock of Christ is small and that very few will be able to enter through the strait gate. All that modern Christianity has to do today is to appeal to the flesh and everything is good. The Church is in pathetic condition and if you follow the crowd you will not end up where you were hoping.

Your understanding of OT law is deficient. The law is not "abolished" as you incorrectly claim; it was fulfilled through Jesus (Matt 5:17-18). Your claim directly contradicts Jesus' own words. I prefer to believe Jesus. Also stop your straw men arguments as who is justifying "murder" as you claim. I certainly don't justify murder so your baseless claim only serves to undermine your argument. Further you add your own words to the text in order to justify your belief which is poor hermeneutics to say the least. Where does Jesus tell Peter to put away his sword forever? Why did you have to add your own word to the text where no such word exists? There is no reference to the use of swords in Isaiah 53:12; it simply states that Jesus was numbered with the transgressors. So for you to incorporate the use of the sword in that text has no justification whatsoever. At the most, Jesus stated that those who draw the sword will die by the sword which means that in general those who take up a lifestyle of violence will die by the same means. Self-defense is not a lifestyle of violence hence your attempt to conflate self defense with murder is quite misplaced.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is hard to do sometimes to forgive and forget.

Why is it difficult to do ? Does not YHVH say to do so ? And does not Jesus say YHVH'S commandments are "not burdensome" ? REJOICE ! even in fiery trials, for YHVH'S purpose in the fiery trials is to show forth pure true faithfulness that is in HIS ANOINTED PEOPLE living in UNION IN JESUS !

Revenge really does only hurt the individual who desires it and serves no purpose.

This is pretty much true most of the time, seeings as so few know when to seek or ask for vengeance and how to do so in line with all Scripture.

However, when YHVH says "Vengeance is MINE, I WILL REPAY" note that HIS PEOPLE go along with YHVH (in Scripture that is - usually CANNOT look to various people on earth to see this, as so few are HIS)....
and YHVH'S Vengeance has purpose at all times, perfect in justice, in mercy, in wisdom and in full knowledge of everything, as YHVH Says in His Word.

To see throughout the centuries examples of FAITH unto death, see foxes book of martyrs, and Corrie ten Boom's testimonies more recently of whole congregations being slaughtered, without resistance (no resistance). Also, millions of believers deceived by their pastors in china, tortured and slaughtered and unprepared, and with NO RESISTANCE against the evil. (again, see in Corrie's testimonies online).

 

[SteveIndy]

So you find yourself at your child's school one day - at the same time that another person has planned to carry out a mass killing of the students there. You may have in your possession a pocket knife you always carry, or maybe even a gun as you have a license to carry. You may even have a bat in your hand as you were on your way to the baseball field. Or you my have nothing in your possession but you see a fire extinguisher on the wall. You see the person begin shooting. What do you do? If you had something in your possession that you could use to stop the attacker wouldn't you use it? Or would you just say to yourself it's up to God to avenge?

The scenarios are endless that could come up on any given occasion but the truth is that there are very few heroes out there. My wife and family along with some other Church folk were at the Flordia airport last year when a gunman killed some people and there were no Christian people who intervened, they all ran for the hills, yet I encounter so many brave men who know exactly what they would do in that situation. I have made no provision for the flesh so I could not pull out my 357 Magnum and blow anyone away; I do have a small knife that would not harm anyone. Any man with fortitude would want to put himself between children and the one doing harm and if possible to disarm the man. Christ has forbidden the taking of life as an option. So, your real question is: would I disobey Christ and take matters into my own hands as so many modern Christians propose?

 

[Oldmantook]

The scenarios are endless that could come up on any given occasion but the truth is that there are very few heroes out there. My wife and family along with some other Church folk were at the Flordia airport last year when a gunman killed some people and there were no Christian people who intervened, they all ran for the hills, yet I encounter so many brave men who know exactly what they would do in that situation. I have made no provision for the flesh so I could not pull out my 357 Magnum and blow anyone away; I do have a small knife that would not harm anyone. Any man with fortitude would want to put himself between children and the one doing harm and if possible to disarm the man. Christ has forbidden the taking of life as an option. So, your real question is: would I disobey Christ and take matters into my own hands as so many modern Christians propose?

The real question you propose is respectfully not the real question. No where in Scripture is defending the lives of others or defending one's own life forbidden. The Commandment is thou shalt not murder as the Hebrew word is specific to the taking of an innocent life. It does not state thou shalt not kill which is a poor translation. So taking matters into your own hands is specific to the situation as we try to avoid violence if at all possible but if someone is going to kill your family then are you going to allow that to happen without defending them and if necessary killing the assailant?

 

[SteveIndy]

The real question you propose is respectfully not the real question. No where in Scripture is defending the lives of others or defending one's own life forbidden. The Commandment is thou shalt not murder as the Hebrew word is specific to the taking of an innocent life. It does not state thou shalt not kill which is a poor translation. So taking matters into your own hands is specific to the situation as we try to avoid violence if at all possible but if someone is going to kill your family then are you going to allow that to happen without defending them and if necessary killing the assailant?

I would not nor could I kill anyone, I have not made that provision. You cannot find in the example of Christ, His Apostles, or the primitive Church the justification you desire. Jesus said, "follow Me" by killing another human being are you following His example or are you following the lead of your flesh?

 

[Oldmantook]

I would not nor could I kill anyone, I have not made that provision. You cannot find in the example of Christ, His Apostles, or the primitive Church the justification you desire. Jesus said, "follow Me" by killing another human being are you following His example or are you following the lead of your flesh?

What you can or cannot do is your prerogative. If someone was killing your family would you really stand idly by and do nothing? Nonetheless your rationale that you offer is based on an argument of silence which is the weakest form of argumentation. The OT and NT is replete with examples of God's children killing other people. Israel of course is one example where God not only approves of but commands them to kill their enemies. In the NT Jesus commends the centurion for his faith and does not tell him to quit his occupation. How can one one be commended for having great faith when one's primary occupation is based on killing others?