Dr. Brown has an informal debate with Theodore Shoebat about whether Jesus would have killed homosexuals if He found them in the Temple; he also share his open letter to Pastor Robert Jeffress. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: My philosophy by which I have operated from day one is to reach out to the people with compassion and resist the agenda with courage, but not with violence!
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Yes, let us speak the truth in an uncompromising way, but let us always speak the truth in love.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week only, we are offering three of Dr. Brown’s Jewish debates at a 50% discounted (bundled) price! You can get all three for as little as $20. As you begin to watch and feel the passion and urgency of these debates, you will come to the conclusion that this is what some of the debates we read about in the New Testament must have been like! Order Online Here!
It is actually absurd that this “debate” has to taken place at all – but, at the end of the day, it is good that people who hold to the same God-dishonoring error that Mr. T. Shoebat does will have been publicly repudiated.
Mr. Shoebat does not speak for the Catholic Church. However, there are merciful applications of the death penalty, certainly. The Church, before executing, would always take every measure to ensure that the condemned repented sincerely of his sins and held the faith before he was put to death. This would carry out a just punishment and, at the same time, guarantee the salvation of a soul. But, first and foremost, we must follow the example of Christ, who preached to sinners and took great pains to gather souls into his fold.
Idaho Pastor Who Spoke at Ted Cruz Rally Shot and Wounded
re: Death Penalty
At what point ought the Christian vested with the authority to govern to take his “disciple-of-Jesus” hat (which tells him never issue a death penalty for what Christianity refers to as “sins”, but what governments refer to as “crimes” – those kinds of penalties not applying for the time being) off and put his “governmental” hat (which “does not bear the sword in vain, but is a terror to evildoers”) on?
What a wonderful testimony of those two sisters at the end of the program. Praise the Lord!
re: Shoebat’s Death Penalties
1. Low / Uninformed Standards
Since Jesus equates hatred with murder (1 Jn reiterates this), I guess Theodor should “have no problem” with putting people who are guilty of hatred to death, right?
How about lusting in one’s heart? Jesus equates that with fornication / adultery, right? Adulterers were all put to death – and if it was discovered that a girl was not a virgin on her wedding night (that she had committed fornication) she was to be put to death. Since this is the case, I guess Theodor should “have no problem” with putting people who lust in their hearts (a sin equal to fornication) to death, right?
And guess what “saint” Paul says about covetous men! You wouldn’t believe it – they are idolaters (really all sin is idolatry 1 Jn 5:21); idolaters are worthy of the death penalty! Since this is the case, I guess Theodor should “have no problem” with putting the covetous to death right?
To simply shoo these realities away is to demonstrate blindness and serious ignorance of Scripture and of God’s standards.
Additionally, Theodor would have to kill himself since he has certainly been guilty of all of these offenses worthy of the death penalty! Go ahead Theodor Shoebat – lead the way! Be an example to all of us – don’t be a hypocrite!
2. Bereft of Scriptural Substantiation
To defend his position, Theodor cited a lot of “saints” but not much in the way of Scripture – and zero in the way of the Apostles’ examples from Scripture.
“Jesus the same yesterday today and forever,” obviously cannot mean what he is wishing for it to mean:
i. Jesus had the opportunity to execute a sinner (“be the same” in the way Theodor wants for Jesus to have been / to be “the same”) in the case of the adulterous woman who was brought before him. What did he say? Did he command the execution of the adulterous woman? No he didn’t. More than that, he said that the one who was without sin ought to have been the first to have cast a stone: just as in the case of Theodor, the people who were zealous to have the woman put to death were not themselves qualified to put anyone to death (no, they were also worthy of death). Jesus was teaching us the true intention and function of the Law – to shut everyone’s mouths [Ro 3:19, 20]. Those who do not understand the Law don’t learn Its lesson – they don’t shut their mouths – but trust in themselves that they are righteous and look at others with contempt [Lk 18]. I think it’s safe to say that wanting to execute someone qualifies as viewing them with contempt.
ii. Paul actually had the opportunity to champion Theodor’s position when the man in Corinth slept with his father’s wife [1 Co 5] – Paul passed it up! “Why?” Paul didn’t believe the way Theodor believes – Paul would have warned people not to listen to Theodor.
Theodor would benefit from investing his time in reading and forming his opinions based on the Scriptures – not in reading non-Scriptural writings which had obviously misled him from the truths of Scripture. For as much as some may enjoy “traditions” they are persuaded “supplement” their faith, how can they feel comfortable with “traditions” which constitute rebellion against God by rebelling against His Word? What gives me the right to hold to this standard (that we should get our beliefs from Scripture) – who has set the precedent? How about Paul? His doctrines was always “as it is written” – and never “as opposed to what is written”!
This Interview with Walid doesn’t surprise me maybe it did you. The Catholic Church has two ways of attack one by percussion this comes by people like James Robison Rick Warren and Meany others who says there is no real difference between real faith and the catholic pagan faith. Second Way was and will be the sward. I have seen what has become of the AG Church and Meany others who have diminished the Truth for Friendship with the World Church ie Catholic Church . Church becomes a hang out place.
When Christ came, he came not to condemn but so that men would repent and be saved. When he returns in glory, however, we can rest assured that he will utterly obliterate the wicked, taking the vengeance of God on the evildoers, for the time for mercy will then be over, and Christ will indeed condemn. So, we see something of a dichotomy here, it would seem. The thing is, now that Christ is presently reigning through his Church on the earth, in this age, before he comes again, the Church has the authority to condemn, for instance through excommunication, as Dr. Brown pointed out, and that is the authority given to her by Christ himself, her head. Now, when the Church became the custodian of Christian states, it was indeed necessary for her, for the good of the public, for the salvation of souls, to persecute public movements, and to put lawless and anarchistic personalities to death, such as the Cathars, etc. There were certainly abuses, but, for the most part, the death penalty, as carried out by the Holy Inquisition, for example was quite merciful, because it allowed the condemned to confess Christ and thus have his soul saved before being executed. In the interest of protecting the Christian faithful from mass corrupters, certain measures can be lawfully taken by the Church, who, again, is the custodian of her flock, and, at least in the past, the custodian of whole nations. Would Jesus Christ have executed people? This is a hypothetical without any real value because it was not his prerogative to do something like that when he came. But he will certainly execute judgment when he comes again, and right now is the time for repentance.
There is no “hypothetical”; the answer is, as I have pointed out, in Scripture – and any deviation therefrom needs to be mercilessly condemned as the foreign and alien contamination, the defamation of the Name of God, the blasphemous false testimony against God, that it is.
To the extent that we are to be a declaration of God’s Name on earth, the same way that Messiah was a declaration of God’s Name on earth, any belief or word or act which is not done in line with the Truth of God is a false statement about the God we are supposed to be representing. Another name for this is “false testimony” (where hearing and believing the Good News is “setting one’s seal to ‘God is true'”). We must be a statement that “God is true” – and never lie by portraying God to be something He is not by deviating from His Word.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Anyway, the Church had to defend itself, and protect its flock, so it carried out executions, and this was done out of necessity and in a moral way. The Apostolic community did not have to deal with the possibility of executing people because they were still an underground movement and did not have the commission to be custodian over whole nation states and peoples. God built his Church up and its influence over time. I don’t know what Shoebat is getting at, really. Christ, if he wanted to, could have set up a community and carried out certain judgments, but this was not his prerogative. When he returns, however, he will execute, because it is just, and this present age is the time for mercy and repentance. Just as God raised up the Israelites to kill the corrupters in the surrounding towns, God gives the Church, his Kingdom on earth, the power to carry out what is necessary to protect his children from taking up the abominable practices of the nations.
You’re assuming that the “Holy Roman Empire” was even the will of God – but that is a whole nother story I don’t intend to waste my time discussing. I’ve given my arguments based on Scripture. You can have your church, I’ll take God.
“…I’ll take God.”
By “hearing and believing” God’s Word, I am “taking God” – God is His Word.
Again, the New Testament does not address how Christian states are to deal with mass lawlessness, sedition, when to go to war, etc, so it helps to have a Church which can pronounce on such matters and provide the answers.
Regarding Shoebat’s point, let me just say that it is unthinkable to imagine Jesus Christ in his first coming ‘killing’ people. First of all, as a Catholic, he should understand the manner in which the Church executed people, which I have explained. But, more importantly, it must be understood that Christ did not make it part of his mission to carry out that kind of judgment. He certainly whipped people, though, as he drove the money changers from the Temple, but it was not his prerogative to do what Shoebat is suggesting he may have done. That is clear.
If you unquestioningly side with your church organization, even when it sides against God by opposing God’s Word, you are siding against and rejecting God.
Paul didn’t care who Peter was [Gal 2]; thus, even granting you really did possess some legitimate “succession” from Peter (there are arguments against this belief of yours – e.g., it doesn’t have foundations in Scripture), no believer anywhere would be under any compulsion to respect or fear you or your organization based on it. Respect you as people who claim to have faith in Jesus? Sure. As brothers in Christ? Sure. As *special* due to “Petrine succession”? Not a chance. As *arbiters of truth* due to “Petrine succession”? Again, not a chance.
I was watching the Amazing Debate with Lawrence Krauss and Fred Niles and others lay into the one Christian on the panel on homosexuality. What was missing on this debate was someone that could represent the Godly side well. I have written to Lawrence Krauss and asked him if he would debate Dr. Brown and he shot back that he had no interest.
He sure was happy to be on the youtube video beating up on the over whelmed Mr. Niles.
There are examples of “Christian cities” (if not “states”) in contemporary times.
One I know of is Almolonga, Guatemala. They did not force anyone to believe upon pains of torture or death, but nearly the entire city is Christian. The people were won to God by the Christians simply living in grace and the goodness of God.
Guess what happened as far as this issue of crime and the need to execute people: it disappeared. They closed the jails because there just was no more crime. They don’t even have to worry about administering death penalties.
I think that this is a good example (and there is at least one more I know of – a Japanese city – but I believe there are others I just haven’t looked in to yet) of how God would want a Christian government to operate in this age (i.e., after His resurrection but prior to His return).
Sometimes I wonder about these people who seem to hyperbolize religiosity, like Shoebat does. He sounds somewhat sensationalistic. Is it possible that he is not sincere?
Shoebat has made multiple errors.
1. He makes a category mistake, assuming because God can act in certain ways (e.g. destroying Sodom), that men are free to act as well. God knows the hearts of men and if with more time they will repent, Shoebat does not.
2. He cites Church authorities with what appears to be equal gravity with Scripture. This seems to stem from the idea of the infallibility of the Catholic church. Even Origen had ideas that would be considered to be unorthodox today.
3. He assumes that all laws in the Old Testament apply universally to all people for all times. There were at least 3 classes of laws that must not be confused.
i) Ceremonial laws ii) Separation laws (e.g. circumcision, dietary laws etc. to keep Israel a separate people) 3. Moral laws that flow from God’s very nature.
4. He assumes that penalties for breaking laws in a Jewish Theocracy are universal. Israel was ideally to be a nation of priests from which would come the Messiah. They were called to a higher standard such that sinful behavior was to be expunged.
5. He wants a Theocracy. But the only way to a true theocracy is by changing people’s hearts not coercing their wills. Then as a whole the government that carries the sword can act.
Again, I think we have to make a clear distinction between the parameters of Christ’s mission when he came, what God’s intentions were for the coming of Christ, which was primarily to make atonement on the cross, and what the Church constituted as a society has to do in order to safeguard the faith entrusted to her and the souls to which she has a responsibility. In the glorious Christian civilizations of pre-Enlightenment, pre-revolutionary Europe, the Church was facing assaults from all sides. It was necessary for measures to be taken so that the faith would remain whole, so that nations would remain in the Christian identity. It was the same for the Israelites in the Old Testament, and no one can say that what God commanded at that time was only for a specific time and place, because the principle is the same now as it was then. The primitive Church, (and I understand that Protestants are always seeking to recapture the original spirit of the Apostolic community in some way), did not have to deal with armies and mass movements of heresy, infiltrators, etc. The Church had to develop its response to these issues over time, and it did indeed look to the Old Testament when it was necessary to do so, when it was necessary to understand how God’s society was to deal with certain problems.
I need to devote my resources to studying the terms and conditions for securing my own personal right standing before, and peace with, God; but I am, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, planning on writing a response that I hope will deal with the issues a little more clearly and fairly. After that, I really need to move on.
My last response wasn’t directed to you necessarily. I’m not looking for a debate either, just giving my views and addressing the issues like everyone else is.
I felt our correspondence became muddled, because we started the conversation on one topic (i.e., the issue of Christians serving the public in secular governments issuing death penalties), but then crossed over, at least in part, into a separate issue I had been addressing (i.e., Theodore’s claims of Jesus would have behaved—and how, by extension, his disciples ought to comport themselves today).
If a Christian cannot, in good conscience (based on his Christianity), enforce the laws of a land he shouldn’t seek election to an office requiring he enforce the laws of that land—that is, unless he lets the voters know he doesn’t plan on enforcing this-or-that statute and / or that he will be seeking to change the laws he cannot enforce with a clear conscience. In the same way as a Nazi soldier cannot be exonerated based on the fact they were “just following orders”, a Christian in government can’t just say, “Well, what do you expect of me? I find myself in government—I am forced to forego my Lord’s Commands to carry out what ever the law of the land may require—if the law requires someone die, I must consent and put the man to death.” Obviously, to put a man to death, he has to have a personal conviction that it is morally acceptable—not simply do it and then “wash his hands” of the matter. What basis would the Christian have for sentencing one person to death, but not for, say, poisoning a well or enforcing racial segregation? His own personal tastes? The Christian is supposed to be following the Bible. Wouldn’t the Christian in government’s condemning someone to death of necessity amount to a Christian disciple’s condemning someone to death? Did he justify putting the criminal to death because he (a mere human) was grieved or disgusted by the crime he committed or was it because the crime grieved and / or disgusted the God whose brand of justice he claims to be representing?
Because since so many people (with good reason) find the practice of sodomy to be a disgusting and deplorable act, it may be easy for people like Theodore to point their fingers at them as poster children for the legitimacy of a Church-run state issuing death penalties; but, again, at what point did your personal tastes enter into the equation when it came to deciding the standard by which men are judged worthy of death according to the God you claim to be representing? Doesn’t God get to have any say in the matter of what offends or disgusts Him, and who is therefore worthy of death? If you’re going to claim to be “doing the Lord’s work”, and “defending the faithful”, then you need to take God’s personal tastes into account. Now, the problem with this is that you will find very quickly that you are yourself worthy of death by God’s standards—you have been offensive and odious to God as well! According to what God thinks (not men), all those found guilty of hating their brothers are murderers [Mt 5:21, 22; 1 Jn 3:15]. YOU’RE offended by murder, so the physical murderer dies—but the man whose hatred offends GOD gets to go free? Says who? Who were you representing? Again, God says those guilty of lusting in their hearts are guilty of (depending on whether they are married or not) either adultery or fornication [Mt 5:27-30]? The Law demands the death of such people. Are you going to be a “righteous judge” and kill those guilty of lust too or are you going to play “favorites”, and only put “sodomites” to death, because they disgust YOU personally? It’s all or nothing isn’t it? If you’re going to represent God then represent God. God says the covetous are idolaters [Ep 5:5]. What would give you the right to stop short of putting any man found guilty of covetousness to death? Wouldn’t you be selling God short if you failed to execute these judgments? That Christian in government would be reducing sin to something visible to the human eye; trivializing the reality of the radical nature of (all) sin—sin which God hates and declares makes (all) men worthy of death—all under the banner of furthering that very same God’s purposes!
Since Jesus, the example to us all, was the King of Israel, one could legitimately say that he was “in government” [Is 9:6]. Did Jesus ever execute anyone? No. Interesting: neither was the Church to put believers to death for their sins—no, not even times when they sinned in ways for which the Law’s explicit prescription was death (e.g., the believer who slept with his father’s wife [1 Co 5:1-3]). Moreover, though the Church was permitted to make some “soft” judgments (e.g., “do not associate with anyone who bears the name of a brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed…“ [1 Co 5:11]), the Church was not to apply even these “soft” judgments to sinners in the world [1 Co 5:9, 10] because the concern of the church was the removal of evil from among itself where judging the world was God’s business [1 Co 10:13].
The solution to “mass corruption” (whether the “corruption” of false teaching or of whoremongering for example) is not for the Church to commit more acts of corruption—is not to murder the corrupt people Jesus died for: two wrongs don’t make a right. We’re taught not to repay evil with evil [Ro 12:17] but to overcome evil with good [Ro 12:21]. That doesn’t mean we’re 100% perfect, but one could reasonably assert that it does mean that if we “mess up” in this area, we should recognize it is wrong and repent—not institutionalize the “mess-up” (e.g., according to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary http://tinyurl.com/z7kmfo3—I believe their source is Oxford University Press’s “World Christian Encyclopedia” p. 10—the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for martyring 5,171,000 Christian professors).
Is it the case that, as Theodore argued on Dr. Brown’s radio show (paraphrase: “Russia doesn’t have the problems with the ‘sodomites’ that America does because Russians persecute their gays—as the church fathers, like Chrysostom, taught them to—when they try to hold rallies; the milquetoast, non-violent, methods of dealing with ‘sodomites’ which people like Dr. Brown subscribe to have clearly failed and are at fault for America’s ‘sodomite’ problem.”) all that matters are results? Where did this idea come from? Not Scripture. Both beating and killing sinners goes against God’s Word. Again, where would you stop? What would give you the right not to beat a hateful or covetous person to death? Beyond the Scriptures I pointed out before, Jesus says we are sent out like lambs [Lk 10:3], and instructed to be harmless as doves [Mt 10:16]. The behaviors you are (by saying, “the faithful needed to be defended) excusing, if you’re honest, are neither lamb- nor dove-like. In fact, at the end of the day, I believe it actually harms “the faithful” to do the things you excuse as “defending the faithful”. Leaning on the arm of the flesh to produce “results”, instead of relying on God, is to perpetuate lies; it is to set a standard for future generations that says that God’s Word can be broken when push comes to shove. How can you further the cause of Christ by sinning against Christ? You can’t. To kill those who differ with you theologically, or who are lawless in some other way—or who, for that matter, do some good thing like translate the Bible—is nothing less than to rely on your flesh to produce your own “results” instead of simply trusting and obeying God [Pr 3:5, 6].
Scripture may not be 100% clear on the issue of Christians serving in a Western Democratic Republic issuing death penalties—but that doesn’t mean the issue is satisfactorily addressed by merely pointing to a historical precedent established by an organization asserting (baselessly in the view of many) unquestionable primacy and authority. What’s more, there’s the reality that the Christians in Almolonga, Guatemala succeeded in ridding their city of 98-99% of its unbelief and enough of its lawlessness to shut their jails down—all without resorting to death threats to “protect the faithful”. They “protected the faithful” by merely being faithful—faithful to God.
http://tinyurl.com/z7kmfo3 page 5
“Now, the problem with this is that you will find very quickly that you are yourself worthy of death by God’s standards—you have been offensive and odious to God as well! According to what God thinks (not men), all those found guilty of hating their brothers are murderers [Mt 5:21, 22; 1 Jn 3:15]. YOU’RE offended by murder, so the physical murderer dies—but the man whose hatred offends GOD gets to go free? Says who? Who were you representing? Again, God says those guilty of lusting in their hearts are guilty of (depending on whether they are married or not) either adultery or fornication [Mt 5:27-30]? The Law demands the death of such people. Are you going to be a “righteous judge” and kill those guilty of lust too or are you going to play “favorites”, and only put “sodomites” to death, because they disgust YOU personally? It’s all or nothing isn’t it? If you’re going to represent God then represent God. God says the covetous are idolaters [Ep 5:5]. What would give you the right to stop short of putting any man found guilty of covetousness to death? Wouldn’t you be selling God short if you failed to execute these judgments?”
First your logic is not based on fact and second you do not really believe it completely. Nowhere does the Bible say that those that covet should be killed for being idolaters. It does not say that those who lust should be killed for being adulterers. And by the way fornication does not carry the death penalty. All the judgments in scripture are for actual harm done to another not for thinking something in ones heart against him.
It is ludicrous to say that a person is not consistent if he believes in judgement for someone who murders but does not believe in the same judgement for someone who hates his brother in his heart.
You are guilty of what you charge. I am guessing that you think that a thief should be made to pay back what he stole and maybe you even think that he should go to jail. I am sure that you do not believe that if one covets his neighbor’s cash he should have to pay him the amount that he lusted after and/or go to jail for it.
There is nothing wrong with governments executing murderers according to scripture. As a matter of fact, it is demanded. There is everything wrong with governments punishing someone for the thoughts of their heart. Only Elohim knows those thoughts and only He can judge them. Thus the idea of “hate crime” punishments is against scripture.
The same Elohim that will judge every man’s heart has instructed governments to judge actual crimes that are committed against other individuals or the society. And he has also told us that we may not take the law into our own hands by taking personal vengeance. We are not taking personal vengeance when we uphold YHWH’s judgements or when we execute a government’s penalties when we are an officer of that government.
All that said, we should not take a government office if we cannot fully comply with our duty to it because our beliefs.
“Since Jesus, the example to us all, was the King of Israel, one could legitimately say that he was “in government” [Is 9:6]. Did Jesus ever execute anyone? No. Interesting: neither was the Church to put believers to death for their sins—no, not even times when they sinned in ways for which the Law’s explicit prescription was death (e.g., the believer who slept with his father’s wife [1 Co 5:1-3]).”
Messiah said that His kingdom was not of this world. He said that he did not come to judge. He said, “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” So Messiah’s kingdom is not an earthly government that is to inflict judgement. So your logic is flawed again.
And Yes Messiah, via Peter declaration and the power of the Holy Spirit did execute Ananias and Sapphira.
The body of Messiah is not to inflict judgements save for excommunication. The governments of this world are to inflict judgement including death.
And for the record the language of 1 Cor.5:1-3 indicates that the father was probably dead…so it was not adultery, but fornication as is stated in 1 Cor. It also says “have” his father’s wife which indicates that he had probably married her.
De. 22:30 A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.
The above passage is about marrying his father’dfs wife after he is dead and is not the same as committing adultery with his father’s wife in Leviticus. One requires the death penalty and the other does not. The man in 1 Cor. was in fornication and not adultery and is therefore in the category of De. 22 and not in the category of Le. 20.
And it is quite funny, actually sad, that you claim that Messiah is the example to us all but refuse to walk as He walked…keeping YHWH’s commandments. But with so much bad logic, it is to be expected.
1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
It wasn’t my intention to make more investments in the discussion. Disagree if you like.
I do not need an answer from you, but you really should reconsider your ideas on this.
First off, I just want to be clear: I totally disagree with Theodore, if I understand him correctly, on the point that Jesus Christ at his first coming would have put people to death. Again, it was not his prerogative to do so, and we would be delving into useless hypotheticals if we were to imagine a situation in which the Lord would have carried out capital punishment. On this we agree, surely. Furthermore, just as, for instance, Christ, who was a man, could have, technically speaking, decided to marry, and did not do so, because it was not his prerogative to do so, similarly, Christ, who had the authority to manifest himself as one carrying out capital punishment, did not. The present age is a time for turning back to God and preparing for the final judgement with a clean conscience and heart before the Lord. This we know. However, we also know that Christ did execute Ananias and Sapphira after he ascended into Heaven, in punishment for their crimes against the Church, and that others were dying for profaning the Eucharist, as well, obviously by the hand of the Eternal Word.
Now, God can destroy an army coming to make war against his people, but he can also call up his own to defend their faith and interests themselves, and this is what happened for many centuries in Europe when Catholic armies battled, for instance, the Goths, the Huns, the Moslems, etc.
There is scriptural precedent for the people of God going to war or organizing an effort to eradicate a threat to the faith.
Now, to someone like Dr. Brown or Daniel, I would be able to say that the Torah prescriptions, even though the regulations of the Law are no longer in force, can apply to Christians today, because the parameters of the just battles of the Israelites can apply to Christians also. But to you, someone who believes that the observances of the Law are still in force, I can perhaps even more easily make a case for taking measures in the way that the Israelites did when they went to kill the enemies of the faith. If you believe that what the Israelites observed is still in force, you should also accept that their commission to defend themselves is also in force for Christians today.
I do not think that Christianity should have an physical army. The Baptists shouldn’t. The Pentecostals shouldn’t. The Catholics shouldn’t.
The scripture does teach that we are to not take personal vengeance. It teaches that we should turn the other cheek when insulted…to decline duels. For our faith, we are not allowed take up arms. Messiah’s kingdom is not of this world…yet. We are ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven…missionaries not mercenaries.
But for protection of our families and communities and countries we are responsible to the point of taking up arms. There can be righteous fighting that a believer can take part in. We should rescue, if we can, those that are being robbed and beaten and violated in front of our eyes.
YHWH calls countries to do His will sometimes as far as righteous wars. He called Babylon to destroy Israel and even His temple. He called Israel to rid Canaan of horrible blood letting idolatry. He may be calling for the eradication of ISIS at this time. He may also be calling ISIS to judge the Islamic countries at this time. Certainly believers have taken part in these things. (Not ISIS, but being in the armies of their countries to bring judgment.) But Christianity is not a country. It is not an army to be called upon to do these things.
The Papacy is a usurper. It is the original United Nations that tries to bring about a one world government by the arm of the flesh. The U.N. and the Papacy stand in opposition to Messiah. They are not subjecting themselves to YHWH or His law. They will both go down in history as Mystery Babylon the great harlot.
Israel is a nation in YHWH’s eyes. It has a mandate to use physical force. Christianity is not a nation in this sense. The “Church” is the embassy of the kingdom of heaven to the earth.
It is not violating the Eucharist or Communion that brought about judgement. It is partaking of Passover unworthily. Communion is an invention of man. Eucharist with it’s transubstantiation is from pagan religions. Passover is how and when we are remember Messiah’s death till He comes.
2Ch 30:18 For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one
19 That prepareth his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.
20 And the LORD hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
Messiah used the Matza after dinner (afikoman) and the 3rd cup of wine (the cup of salvation or redemption) to initiate the new covenant. He did not start some new tradition of sipping a bit of grape juice and a small cracker on Sunday morning. It is called the last supper for a reason. It is not the last breakfast or the last little snack. It is the end of the Passover meal.
Passover has always shown the death of Messiah till He comes. Now it is even more evident. Messiah’s death is to be remembered once a year in the manner that He prescribed…after dinner with the hidden matzah and the cup of redemption.
Obviously we disagree about transubstantiation, etc. Whatever you think of the Eucharist, I was simply pointing out that people were dying because they were profaning the body and blood of Christ by receiving it in an unworthy manner, and God was doing this. Christ was carrying out judgement on members of the Church. He could have allowed them to live and to repent, but he did not, for reasons incomprehensible to us.
Again, whatever your theology concerning the meaning of the Church (uppercase “C” or lowercase, whichever), the Body of Christ has a responsibility to its flock and must take action in certain situations, just as the Israelites did. We are called to turn the other cheek, yes, as individuals, but a Christian nation can do battle against infidels, heretics, anarchists, etc, if this is the only way to protect its spiritual interests, and the Catholic Church, when it had authority over Christian states, did what it had to do to ensure the survival of Christendom, which, if it had not, would have become largely Muslim. And we might all be Muslims today, by the way. Keep that in mind.
“Christianity is not a country.” The Church is the Kingdom of God on earth, until the Messiah returns. It is a society, exactly like ancient Israel, although perfected and glorious, because it has the truest Temple and the truest sacrifice, and it is the truest ark of salvation, for it leads souls into the promised land, the “Jerusalem” of Heaven. As the custodian of souls, the Church, by the commission of the Almighty, does have the authority to physically combat the forces of evil when necessary. The issue of Christ not killing people in his first coming and the question as to whether the Church can do so in a merciful and lawful way are, essentially, two separate issues, and they are being confounded by people who cannot accept that the Catholic Church represents God in the world. Even if you believe in another church, accept, as you do, that Christians can engage in just wars, and let us agree on that point, and that this does not in any way violate the prescriptions of Christ.
Comments are closed.