Back to the cross, the root, the word @
The Radical Pilgrim
~ Pro Bible ~ Pro Apologetics ~ Pro Kingdom ~All scripture quotations from the Authorized Bible, without apologies. Placed accents mine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guns and Moses
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart
From the beginning of this article I want to make it clear that it has not been an easy treatise to write. After visiting various websites of Christians in the armed services, no doubt some of them God fearing and would sincerely pray for minimum casualties on both sides of a conflict, I realize that it is easy throwing stones at the glasshouse when one stands outside the glasshouse. I have also met many sincere respected men (not 'born again' Christians by the way) who flew in Bomber Command, or were POWs under the Japanese in WW2, or served in Korea or Vietnam, etc., who were only there to do a job, finish the war, and get home to their families as quick as they could. My own unconverted father, who is still alive, also served in the military, from the Royal Navy to the Fleet Air Arm, to the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Apart from all this, with all sentiment aside, we cannot use emotionalism to ignore or exclude what the scriptures say, and what living under the New Covenant really means, if we are to count ourselves as Bible believers. The world is a lot bigger than our sphere, our country, and the culture we are brought up in, and it is so easy to be one-eyed to familiarity, even from someone who names the name of Christ. So much of Christianity today is intertwined and deeply entrenched with religiosity, nationalism, politics, or militarism; where passion runs deep and emotions are high; that it is so hard to discern the true from the false. However, true discernment can be made when one learns to rightly dividing the word of truth, cutting asunder the bona fide from the mixture.
A while back, just as the foreign occupation of Iraq was taking effect, a brother sent me a photo of some troops in full camouflage, in the desert somewhere in Iraq, huddled in a prayer circle, with one soldier holding a Bible in his hand, as he embraced his fellow soldier beside him. From this one photo, plus a few others that were sent to me later, this brother (and some others) used this as their proof that these guys were over there as "military" ambassadors of Christ. Although I cannot question the sincerity of every individual soldier in this photo, nor their motives; may I comment further by saying that to use such a photo like this as a justification of their cause, means absolutely nothing.
It is now becoming the norm to use God in everything to make it valid and acceptable, whatever that something might be. In New Zealand, rugby and sport border on being a religion at times, with quite a few players calling themselves Christians. It is not uncommon now to see teams huddled around in circles with someone "giving thanks" after a match. It is also now a universal New Age trend to huddle together into a group for "bonding" sessions, in order to enhance unity among participants along with comradeship. Man is a religious creature and just because he prays, even in Jesus name, quotes scripture, connects "spiritually" with others, makes the cross-sign across his chest, and even pays reference to God at a public honours ceremony, mean's absolutely nothing at the end of the day. To go even further ... like casting out devils, prophesying, and doing wonderful works, all in Jesus name; will mean nothing to the great Judge (Matt. 7:22) on that final day either, if it is done in name only.
In war AD, Moses is reinstated as captain and Jesus is dethroned, with the following old commandment becoming a bloodied "relevance" once again ... "And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". Obscuring us from a new love commandment under the true captain of our salvation ... "That all men may know that we are His disciples."
..War
brings destruction and grace brings peace. Until we go to be with
Jesus war is inevitable, because war is in the heart of man (James
4:1).
This is why Jesus said "ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars"
(sabre
rattling and threats), as well as famine and pestilence, etc.
Therefore,
war is unavoidable in an overall time frame. This is the reality
of living in this present world, especially in the closing hours of
history.
Earlier this year I wrote "War, revolution, and the remnant" confirming this reality but not supporting Christians who supported war, even though it is taught as their patriotic duty to do so. Basically, what I was and am saying, is that organized destruction and "justified" destruction (war) is not for a believer to be involved with, just as abortion clinics and brothels are to be shunned and not supported either. To assert it is a patriot's duty in going to war; and licence for Christians to be trained as professional killers and administer destruction to others; it would also be similar in saying it is a Christian patriot's duty in China to have an abortion. This could be seen as keeping the population down by obeying the laws of the land, in an over populated country. In a similar lesser light ... just because prostitution becomes legal, as in my country, it does not mean it is now legal in God's eyes. The truth is ... we only obey the government up to the point its laws do not contradict the new commandment Jesus gave to His flock. The disciples lived by this truth and so should His end time church:
Acts 5:29 ... "We ought to obey God rather than men."
The truth is ... war was done away with at the cross (Eph. 2:15)! Just because war is still prevalent in this present world, it is not a contradiction in saying war has been cancelled out at the cross, because this truth only applies to the repentant sinner, while this world's system goes on for the time being, alienated from the things of God. Likewise, even though sin was done away with at the cross, sin still takes its course and toll in this world, until the Lord returns. This is how the remnant in Christ should view things through the word, and what spirit they are to take on board. Jesus said:
"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
As believers, we are not of this world either (spiritually), although still in it (in the flesh). We are here to shine as lights and be salt. Nothing more, nothing less. If we happen to be in the armed services we go as medics, drivers, logistic personnel, etc. We are there as witnesses, not hired or trained killers. We are there as servants, not aggressors. Where we are to bring life, not destroy it, as in every place the Lord tells us to remain or calls us.
As I explained to someone the other day; I place biblical things into two categories revelation wise ... one being the broad way, the path which the world and apostate church go; and the other being the narrow way, which God's people are called to. I believe this because I believe scripture portrays it this way, as it is the way God sees it.
The 'narrow way' ... where there is no room for mixing earthly values with heavenly values, or compromising or adding to "simplicity and godly sincerity", and few are those who find it.
I could come across a little more crudely, bluntly, and simplistic, and mention the two opposite and eternal places which begin with the letter H! This would really narrow things down. However, dealing with 'the here and now' along with its worldly politicizing and fun and games, many Christians are bamboozled with "obligation", false loyalty and confused duty, and the reason they cannot discern between religion and reality in the Lord. Some call it "patriotism". Others say it is being ignorant of scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:12 makes things clear:
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
When followers of Jesus wanted to sanction destructive tactics against some non-compliants during the time of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus rebukes them with these words (Luke 9:55), "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."
From a slightly different angle I would call the two conflicting ways the two covenants ... the Old and redundant covenant the Old Testament conveys, in contrast to the New and better way the New Testament reveals. This is because when the Old Covenant is portrayed as 'the end' and not just 'the means', is it no more than an amalgamation with the world, being homogenized in spirit to the world (against Christ), and outside of the kingdom of God. Biblically, what is considered obsolete by God cannot be revived. Paul said, "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."
Moses represented an "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". There was no grace but condemnation. Moses wore a mask to hide a fading glory. Meaning, he was representing something weaker and temporal, revealing a diminishing agreement between God and His people, which was only in place for a time, until the superior arrived. Then (not now) His people could be physically armed and take their inheritance by military force.
Today, the remnant use spiritual weapons and not carnal weapons like grenade launchers and M16s. Spiritual weapons which are "mighty through God to the pulling down of (spiritual) strong holds," according to Paul, who once sanctioned the sword (Acts 22:4, 26:11; Gal. 1:13) before his conversion to the new and living way.
Today, many storm the kingdom trying to take it by force, but the meek and repentant enter through the Door. This Door is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the (narrow) way, who came not to condemn the world and get even, but to turn the other cheek.
Turn the other cheek!! We've all heard it before! Today we hear the spin from many that no instruction was given by Jesus after turning the second cheek, so as the options run out, you can take liberty into your own hands and strike out the best way you can. Unless you are an elder of course, or if you want to appear biblical ... Titus 1:7! It is, and always was (since the New Testament came into being) offering the other cheek, after the first cheek has been assaulted. Jesus couldn't do much anyway (in the natural that is) after being nailed to that tree and suspended in space. It goes against the grain to be utterly vulnerable like this, and takes divine intervention for deliverance from such a helpless state. Anything to avoid taking up our cross daily and living by (unadulterated) faith.
Repaying evil for evil is obviously man's remedy, which means lashing back and getting even. What's the "original" Greek word here? I think the word 'retribution' is accurate enough:
Matt. 5:39. "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Here God was not left back on a mountain, or in a tent, but came to tabernacle (live, abide, reside) in the hearts of His people. No longer was this inheritance to be taken by force, because the enemy was beaten at the cross. Not to forget, this inheritance was totally secured eternally, and could never be destroyed.
I live in a different culture to some countries. Not only are we blessed with not having snakes or scorpions (in the literal sense), or man-hunting animals roaming in the wild, but the average everyday police are not armed ... they don't carry guns on their hips while on duty. When I was a child there was no Armed Offenders Squad and a murder was rare and shocked the whole nation for a long period of time. It was a Kiwis privilege and prerogative to own a firearm and respect it, and it was not an ego trip to be seen with a fire arm, just a (discreet) tool for hunting, going into the mountains, or for the occasional hobbyist to use in target shooting. The military were there to take it further for national defence.
Now all this has changed due to the NWO and our defence forces being redefined for a whole new role-play. With the emphasis changing from "defence" in countering a foreign invader, or in supporting an ally in a conflict, our forces have now been re indoctrinated into being good "world citizens" and existing for global peace missions and relief work.
While growing up in New Zealand the
only
gun culture
we were accustomed to was the imported "John Wayne" Hollywood mentality
on the big screen, purely for entertainment purposes, with guys
carrying
guns on their hips to look cool. However, they were not seen as
role
models in any sense of the word (or candidates for future politicians),
just "movie stars" portraying ninety minutes of fantasy. This was
before the "Dirty Harry's, the "Rambo's", and the "Robo Cops" became
centre
stage.
Of course things have changed due
to the
introduction
of the TV and the VCR, etc. and the deteriorating and violent world
converging
on us. As globalism is forced on us or embraced, so is new
standards
and the so-called "new morality" that comes with its emergence, with a
sting on the end of its tail of lawlessness and crime. Also,
what
was once considered loose and liberal, and even repugnant by the
established
church, is now not only the norm, but embraced by those who name the
name
of Christ and are supposed to be a light shining in darkness. I
think
this verse would be appropriate here:
"For we are not as many, which
corrupt the
word
of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak
we
in Christ".
When
the West goes to war, much effort is now made by the media and PR
machine
(it use to be called propaganda) to show that it is a Christian battle
with a righteous cause, armed with coalition soldiers being the
"Christian" soldiers of our day. As just one example please view
the following (there goes that so-called "original" Greek again and we
are reminded again of the Old Testament if it still applies today under
the New):
[The soldiers see no moral conflict between their Christian faith and their battlefield duties.
Many have killed or wounded Iraqis during the intense hunt for
guerrillas
and former regime loyalists around Tikrit, a hotbed of anti-American
resistance and pro-Saddam sentiment.
"The Bible says 'thou shalt not kill' but the original Greek says 'thou
shalt not take a judicially innocent life'. Saddam and his
men are
pretty
evil, if
they were tried in any court, they would be found guilty," said
Goodwin.
"I don't think it's a problem because God sent people to war. Just look
at the Old Testament," added Corporal Christian Gaspard, also baptised
on
Sunday.]
"Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."
When the religious leaders wanted to "lawfully" hurl missiles at a woman caught in adultery did not Jesus say? "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one ..."
They (the leaders) were the good guys and she was the wicked woman, in their "qualified" eyes. However, who did Jesus team up with?
Barabbas was not a coward or a conscientious objector, or a pacifist either, as far as patriotism goes. Was he not a Jewish hero? He "lawfully" fought against the illegal invaders and occupiers of God's chosen Holy Land and its people, and scripture called him a murderer.
The
truth is ... during "the battle for the hearts and
minds of
the Iraqi people" it is now reported that an estimated ten thousand
Iraqi
civilians were killed in the combined US and British bombing. This is
on
top of the thousands which were killed by the Coalition forces in the
first Gulf War in 1990, and the thousands who died of disease, hunger,
and a lack of medical supplies, between both conflicts. If the
figure
of ten thousand is not accurate (a figure is not important here) at
least
the figure was in the thousands anyhow.
"But that is war!!!" you exclaim! Sure! I would have to agree with you. However, is this not more reason to heed the call, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plague?" Is it not a contradiction to John the baptist's advice, to the soldiers in Judea in His day, while preparing them for another kingdom? Luke 3:14 records:
"And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do (they were obviously under conviction)? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely (that the other side are the bad guy because they are apparently fighting for the wrong cause or wrong side); and be content with your wages (don't be an ambitious professional or have a mercenary attitude).
Did not Jesus say to Peter in Matthew 26:52 (which has been quoted many times)?:
"Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Why was a pastor in the states annoyed when I told him to tell his marine son to put away his rifle? Aren't marines trained to live and sleep with their gun (the sword) and treat it as if it was their baby? Isn't it part of their creed to embrace their rifle as their life? Even US marines fighting in the Pacific Islands in WW2 were outspoken enough to say that any suggestion they were fighting for their country was cr-p. They also said they were just "killing machines", who were apparently just going through the motions of how and why they were trained. Moreover, is not 'the word of God' the sword of a soldier of Christ, which he is to live and breath with? As opposed to the physical weapon Jesus told Peter to put away!
In response to my suggestion to this pastor about his son putting away his sword, the concerned father/pastor sent me an email from his marine/son. The letter was about how worried his son was having to come to terms with being in a situation where he could be shooting and killing armed children, when he was off the coast of Sierra Leone recently, waiting for the word to "go in". Many of us prayed, at his request, because of this ugly predicament, which could have, but did not come to fruition. The same goes for any soldier of course. I only used the marine's case here, because it was closer to home.
Yes,
war is usually filled
with ugly predicament and
contradictory situations.
The USA had this scenario during its rebellion against its King, the
King
of
England. Repeated again in the American Civil War. I have
already
sent you an article by a brother
in the States whose ancestors were caught up on both sides of the
conflict
when "Christian"
USA invaded "Christian" Canada to try and annex it like they did
later
with Texas and Mexico. Who were the bad guys? Those on the
Canadian side fighting off an invader, or those on the invaders side
fighting trying to steal home soil? Usually depends on what side
you are on of
course!
..If
it was wrong for Red China to invade and occupy Tibet in the 50's, then
it was wrong for the Christian Coalition to invade and occupy Iraq a
few
decades later! If it was right for these countries, then what
about
Iraq when they invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1989? Or Vietnam
when
it invaded Cambodia in 1978? Or China when it invaded Vietnam in
1979? They all have good reasons and justifications.
Saddam did when their oil was being poached by their Arab neighbour by
deep angle drilling! Hitler and Stalin
did
when they marched into Poland and carved it up! Or
whattabout Yugoslavia
when it tried to take Kosovo back (as it
was their's in the first place) but got
their
hands smacked by Nato and the US. Here, mass graves of hundreds
of victims of war,
were exaggerated into multi amounts of mass graves of thousands
of victims by
the
Western media, all against Serbian brutality. When hundreds of
thousands
of Serbs (families) were forced from their own homes in Croatia in
1995,
the Western Press was
largely silent, but always loud when Serbs forced Croats, Bosnians,
or Albanians from their homes. We heard all about the Serbs
killing
and persecuting the Muslims but we heard very little about the
atrocities
on the other side during
the Balkans conflict of the 90's. What was also played down
was
that some of the most brutal fighting was fought between Croats
and Muslims. All depending on political expedience and
correctness of course (the PC stuff),
and what side it was economically viable to report from at the time.
Remember, Peter wanted to use the sword. James and John wanted to bomb with fire. The religious leaders wanted to kill with projectiles. In contrast, Jesus response was, "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
How many are like Peter and would use the sword? How many like James and John would use incendiary means against their enemy when Jesus said to love and pray for them? Paul had used the sword (or indorsed the sword) along with using terror in his old life as Saul. Through conversion and revelation he brought a gospel which went further than the gospel of the other apostles, called "the revelation of Jesus Christ" (also known in scripture as "the mystery of the gospel"). This is the gospel which has now been entrusted to us and the reason both Paul and Peter said:
Rom.
12:17. "Recompense to no man evil for evil."
1 Thes.. 5:15. "See that none render evil for evil unto any
man"
1 Pet. 3:9. "Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing:
but contrariwise blessing"
This applies even if using force appears plausible, appropriate, civilized and justifiable; because it happens to be sanctioned by a government, regime, or a policy. While the words of Jesus still echo as truth for our time, for those that are His:
"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
Jesus never used a physical weapon in scripture. A weapon is an instrument of attack or defence. When Jesus used a cord he was not using a weapon, as a loving father would not use a weapon against his children, but a rod of chastisement. There is a big difference. Jesus chastised those who were abusing His house, and drove them out. True saints can spiritually use cords against false teachers in His house today, and drive them out, if they do not remorsefully repent of wilfully deceiving others.
Jesus never used indictment against the foreign army occupying His land, or spoke insurrection and overthrow against the Romans. This would be a contradiction. It is just as big a contradiction when those that name His name, and call themselves His followers, wave His Holy Book in one hand and carpet bomb with the other, wiping out large civilian populations (like in Cambodia and Laos) who had nothing to do with war.
As pilgrims and strangers down here, it is not our business what the world does, or the course it takes. We know what course it will take, from scripture. Therefore, how can we resist the will of God? When Saul (later called Paul) wasted the church and broke into the houses of believers, and dragged them off to internment, there is not a thread of evidence from scripture the Christians resisted and took up the sword. If they did, it would have been documented in Acts and would have contradicted Jesus' teachings. What they did was follow the words of Jesus, demonstrate the gospel in the power of the Holy Ghost, and in meekness turn the world upside down.
First we have the natural (physical), as in Israel; who fought physical battles. Then we have the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46 ) as in the church; who fight spiritual battles. This is the principal in scripture. Jesus' ministry was different than Moses. Moses' was for a time. Jesus' was for eternity. The new commandment went further than the Ten Commandments written on stone, and went hand in hand with the new circumcision, and required spiritual application of the heart.
Following is a list of crimes for you to consider, that required the death penalty under the Old Covenant:
1) ...Murder. Ex. 21:12, 14, Lev. 24:17, 21Under the New Covenant, if killing is lawful against a person in a foreign land, by dropping a bomb on him because he is driving a military truck, and happens to be on the opposite hostile side (the cargo could be food, blankets and clothing, or medical supplies) then surely killing would be much more justified in the list above should it not, in our own land? After all, the offenders above are all more neatly categorized and undeniably made clear of being scripturally guilty, are they not? Plus the fact, if we are obligated to just come back under one requirement of the Old Covenant, then we are obligated in keeping the whole law. Think about it! This would mean those that strike their parents or kept a pet that was capable of killing someone, or was not religiously observing Saturday, or obeying their pastor; would need the death penalty too. Whattabout those giving false prophecies today? Even more, the person who is kidnapping, or harming a pregnant woman, or into bestiality, would be deserving of death more than the logistic military driver, driving along a lonely road in enemy territory; you just happened to have shot up or bombed to pieces, doing your country a favour ... would they not?
2) .Striking father or mother. Ex. 21:15
3) .Kidnapping. Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7
4) .Cursing father or mother. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9
5) .Harming pregnant woman (includes abortion). Ex. 21:22, 23
6) .Knowingly owning a violent ox that kills someone. Ex. 21:29
7) .Sorcery (the occult and witchcraft). Ex. 22:18
8) .Bestiality. Ex. 22:19, Lev. 20:15, 16
9) ..Working on the Sabbath. Ex. 35:2, Num. 15:32-36
10).Adultery. Lev. 20:10-12, Deut. 22:22
11) .Human sacrifices (includes infanticide). Lev. 20:2
12) Homosexuality. Lev. 20:13
13) Blaspheming the name of the Lord. Lev. 24:16
14) False prophecy. Deut. 13:5
15) Worshipping false gods (or making impressions of them). Deut. 13:6-10
16) Disobeying a priest or judge. Deut. 17:12
17) Disobeying a parent. Deut. 21:18-21
18) Raping a betrothed young woman. Deut. 22:25
19) Losing virginity before marriage. Deut. 22:13-24
Can you not see the folly and irrationality in the notion you need to obey your country and kill the enemy, and that it is valid because your government demands it, and then say that God sees favour in it? Especially when Jesus said we are to love, pray and forgive our enemy! For we have "an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven". This is what we have to look forward to, and show this way and convey it to others:
Isaiah 60:18. "Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise."
It is not the duty of a believer to assist a sinner (or enemy) by premeditation and his training and drill (whether he is armed or not armed) to heaven or hell? Or is it not the calling of a believer to give that cup of cold water in Jesus name (forget those cruby oil fields)?
